A comparative case study of couples programming to support relationship quality in Nepal and Rwanda

Abstract

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most common form of violence against women, there is limited understanding of best practices to prevent IPV through working directly with couples and supporting quality of relationships. There are valid concerns of safely conducting research and programming with couples. Yet couples programming responds to the fact that many couples may want to stay together but require support and skills to manage violence. This article compares evaluation data of two programs in Nepal and Rwanda that worked with couples to support relationship quality. The Indashyikirwa program in Rwanda implemented a 5-month curriculum with couples to support equitable, nonviolent relationships. Approximately 25% of trained partners of couples were further supported as community activists for an additional 2 years. Change Starts at Home in Nepal implemented a 9-month couples’ curriculum to promote equitable and violence free relationships through fostering mutual respect and understanding, alongside a weekly radio program. The last 3 months of the curriculum focused on community outreach and awareness. This article draws on longitudinal qualitative interviews conducted separately with 28 partners of couples before, immediately after and 1 year following the couples’ curriculum in Rwanda, and with 36 partners of couples before, 6 months into the curriculum, and at the end of the intervention in Nepal. Thematic analysis of couples’ accounts was conducted and compared across the two studies. Despite the different interventions and settings, the cross-comparative analysis suggests similar pathways of change among couples, including enhanced relationship quality and skills as mediators to prevent IPV. This article considers how both programs supported greater communication and conflict resolution skills and a sense of unity and shared power among couples. The findings suggest the value of couples programming within the context of an enabling environment, highly trained facilitators, and strong referral networks.

Effective prevention of intimate partner violence through couples training: a randomised controlled trial ofIndashyikirwain Rwanda

“…Couples who volunteer, especially for programmes requiring long-term commitments, may be more likely than others to benefit and see improvements in their relationships. 12 25 We were unable to blind participants to the study assignment at the enrolment phase, so this may have resulted in some differential recruitment between arms. While the intervention and control participants were demographically similar at baseline, the two study arms asked participants to volunteer for different tasks(participating in a 22 session curriculum versus research interviews only)which could have prompted different willingness to enrol; control participants were more likely to report that both members of the couple belonged to a VSLA, suggesting that there may have been some systematic difference in who came forward to participate.…”

“… 11 Such approaches typically use group or community-based formats with trained facilitators rather than therapists or counsellors, and often respond to high generalised rates of IPV, as well as economic and social conditions that hinder women from leaving unsafe relationships. 12 This paper seeks to enhance the global evidence base on couples’ programming by sharing findings from an evaluation of the couples’ component of Indashyikirwa, an IPV prevention programme in Rwanda. A separate manuscript presents findings from the results from repeat cross-sectional surveys of the communities before and after the three other components of Indashyikirwa , as well as insights from the detailed process evaluation that accompanied the rollout.…”

Women’s economic status, male authority patterns and intimate partner violence: a qualitative study in rural North West Province, South Africa

“…An increase in women's financial independence enhances their household position through financial contributions and control over resources, increases their household economic status, and widens their support networks (Vyas, Mbwambo, and Heise 2015). This is supported by recent evidence from a social and economic empowerment trial in Afghanistan (Gibbs et al 2020), a cluster randomised trial of women's groups in Nepal (Gram, Morrison, Saville, et al 2019) and three intimate partner violence prevention trials that included economic strengthening components plus gender training in Tajikistan, Rwanda and South Africa (Stern, McGhee, et al 2020), where women's experience of work outside the home indicates a broader transformation of their livelihood opportunities. However, the effect of income generation by itself on women's risk of violence is contingent on a number of other factors, particularly men's reactions (Agarwal 1997;Heise 2011).…”

“…The risk of increased intimate partner violence could decline over time, however, as both men's individual attitudes and broader social attitudes become more accepting of women's increased economic activity and financial autonomy (Ahmed 2005). This was evidenced in three studies included in a Stern, McGhee, et al (2020) paper where participants reported shifts from harmful gender norms and roles towards more equitable decision-making and the sharing of household tasks and provider roles. Therefore, the relationship between women's empowerment and intimate partner violence is not straightforward and warrants further exploration (Raj et al 2018;Vyas and Watts 2009).…”

“…Finally, there are limits to economic and social empowerment programmes' ability to fundamentally address inequitable gender norms and power relations within programmatic timeframes. Even with positive changes at the individual and relationship level, for meaningful change and sustainable impacts on intimate partner violence, individual-level interventions need to be complemented by structural initiatives that work at the community level to challenge broader patriarchal norms over time (Stern, McGhee, et al 2020).…”