SummaryBackgroundAround 105 million people in India will be living in informal settlements by 2017. We investigated the effects of local resource centres delivering integrated activities to improve women's and children's health in urban informal settlements.MethodsIn a cluster-randomised controlled trial in 40 clusters, each containing around 600 households, 20 were randomly allocated to have a resource centre (intervention group) and 20 no centre (control group). Community organisers in the intervention centres addressed maternal and neonatal health, child health and nutrition, reproductive health, and prevention of violence against women and children through home visits, group meetings, day care, community events, service provision, and liaison. The primary endpoints were met need for family planning in women aged 15–49 years, proportion of children aged 12–23 months fully immunised, and proportion of children younger than 5 years with anthropometric wasting. Census interviews with women aged 15–49 years were done before and 2 years after the intervention was implemented. The primary intention-to-treat analysis compared cluster allocation groups after the intervention. We also analysed the per-protocol population (all women with data from both censuses) and assessed cluster-level changes. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN56183183, and Clinical Trials Registry of India, number CTRI/2012/09/003004.Findings12 614 households were allocated to the intervention and 12 239 to control. Postintervention data were available for 8271 women and 5371 children younger than 5 years in the intervention group, and 7965 women and 5180 children in the control group. Met need for family planning was greater in the intervention clusters than in the control clusters (odds ratio [OR] 1·31, 95% CI 1·11–1·53). The proportions of fully immunised children were similar in the intervention and control groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·84–2·01), but were greater in the intervention group when assessed per protocol (1·73, 1·05–2·86). Childhood wasting did not differ between groups (OR 0·92, 95% CI 0·75–1·12), although improvement was seen at the cluster level in the intervention group (p=0·020).InterpretationThis community resource model seems feasible and replicable and may be protocolised for expansion.FundingWellcome Trust, CRY, Cipla.

IntroductionCommunity mobilisation through group activities has been used to improve women’s and children’s health in a range of low-income and middle-income contexts, but the mechanisms through which it works deserve greater consideration. We did a mixed-methods systematic review of mechanisms, enablers and barriers to the promotion of women’s and children’s health in community mobilisation interventions.MethodsWe searched for theoretical and empirical peer-reviewed articles between January 2000 and November 2018. First, we extracted and collated proposed mechanisms, enablers and barriers into categories. Second, we extracted and synthesised evidence for them using narrative synthesis. We assessed risk of bias with adapted Downs and Black and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists. We assigned confidence grades to each proposed mechanism, enabler and barrier.Results78 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 39 described interventions based on a participatory group education model, 19 described community-led structural interventions to promote sexual health in marginalised populations and 20 concerned other types of intervention or multiple interventions at once. We did not have high confidence in any mechanism, enabler or barrier. Two out of 15 proposed mechanisms and 10 out of 12 proposed enablers and barriers reached medium confidence. A few studies provided direct evidence relating proposed mechanisms, enablers or barriers to health behaviours or health outcomes. Only two studies presented mediation or interaction analysis for a proposed mechanism, enabler or barrier.ConclusionWe uncovered multiple proposed mechanisms, enablers and barriers to health promotion through community groups, but much work remains to provide a robust evidence base for proposed mechanisms, enablers and barriers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018093695.

Community mobilisation interventions have been used to promote health in many low-income and middle-income settings. They frequently involve collective action to address shared determinants of ill-health, which often requires high levels of participation to be effective. However, the non-excludable nature of benefits produced often generates participation dilemmas: community members have an individual interest in abstaining from collective action and free riding on others’ contributions, but no benefit is produced if nobody participates. For example, marches, rallies or other awareness-raising activities to change entrenched social norms affect the social environment shared by community members whether they participate or not. This creates a temptation to let other community members invest time and effort. Collective action theory provides a rich, principled framework for analysing such participation dilemmas. Over the past 50 years, political scientists, economists, sociologists and psychologists have proposed a plethora of incentive mechanisms to solve participation dilemmas: selective incentives, intrinsic benefits, social incentives, outsize stakes, intermediate goals, interdependency and critical mass theory. We discuss how such incentive mechanisms might be used by global health researchers to produce new questions about how community mobilisation works and conclude with theoretical predictions to be explored in future quantitative or qualitative research.

BackgroundIn a cluster randomised controlled trial in Mumbai slums, we will test the effects on the prevalence of violence against women and girls of community mobilisation through groups and individual volunteers. One in three women in India has survived physical or sexual violence, making it a major public health burden. Reviews recommend community mobilisation to address violence, but trial evidence is limited.MethodsGuided by a theory of change, we will compare 24 areas receiving support services, community group, and volunteer activities with 24 areas receiving support services only. These community mobilisation activities will be evaluated through a follow-up survey after 3 years. Primary outcomes will be prevalence in the preceding year of physical or sexual domestic violence, and prevalence of emotional or economic domestic violence, control, or neglect against women 15–49 years old. Secondary outcomes will describe disclosure of violence to support services, community tolerance of violence against women and girls, prevalence of non-partner sexual violence, and mental health and wellbeing. Intermediate theory-based outcomes will include bystander intervention, identification of and support for survivors of violence, changes described in programme participants, and changes in communities.DiscussionSystematic reviews of interventions to prevent violence against women and girls suggest that community mobilisation is a promising population-based intervention. Already implemented in other areas, our intervention has been developed over 16 years of programmatic experience and 2 years of formative research. Backed by public engagement and advocacy, our vision is of a replicable community-led intervention to address the public health burden of violence against women and girls.Trial registrationControlled Trials Registry of India, CTRI/2018/02/012047. Registered on 21 February 2018. ISRCTN, ISRCTN84502355. Registered on 22 February 2018.

ObjectivesDomestic violence against women harms individuals, families, communities and society. Perpetrated by intimate partners or other family members, its overlapping forms include physical, sexual and emotional violence, control and neglect. We aimed to describe the prevalence of these forms of violence and their perpetrators in informal settlements in Mumbai.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingTwo large urban informal settlement areas.Participants5122 women aged 18–49 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrevalence and perpetrators in the last year of physical, sexual and emotional domestic violence, coercive control and neglect. For each of these forms of violence, responses to questions about individual acts and composite estimates.ResultsIn the last year, 644 (13%) women had experienced physical domestic violence, 188 (4%) sexual violence and 963 (19%) emotional violence. Of ever-married women, 13% had experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence in the last year. Most physical (87%) and sexual violence (99%) was done by partners, but emotional violence equally involved marital family members. All three forms of violence were more common if women were younger, in the lowest socioeconomic asset quintile or reported disability. 1816 women (35%) had experienced at least one instance of coercive control and 33% said that they were afraid of people in their home. 10% reported domestic neglect of their food, sleep, health or children’s health.ConclusionsDomestic violence against women remains common in urban informal settlements. Physical and sexual violence were perpetrated mainly by intimate partners, but emotional violence was attributed equally to partners and marital family. More than one-third of women described controlling behaviours perpetrated by both intimate partners and marital family members. We emphasise the need to include the spectrum of perpetrators and forms of domestic violence—particularly emotional violence and coercive control—in data gathering.Trial registration numberISRCTN84502355; Pre-results.