Social norms and women's risk of intimate partner violence in Nepal

Abstract

Social norms increasingly are the focus of intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention strategies but are among the least examined contextual factors in quantitative violence research. This study assesses the within-community, between-community, and contextual effect of a new measure of social norms (PVNS: Partner Violence Norms Scale) on women's risk of IPV. Data come from baseline surveys collected from 1435 female, married, reproductive-age participants, residing in 72 wards in three districts (Chitwan, Kapilvastu, Nawalparasi) in Nepal who were enrolled in a cluster randomized trial testing the impact of a social behavioral change communication intervention designed to prevent IPV. Results of unconditional multilevel logistic regression models indicated that there was cluster-level variability in the 12-month prevalence of physical (ICC = 0.07) and sexual (ICC = 0.05) IPV. Mean PVNS scores also varied across wards. When modeled simultaneously, PVNS scores aggregated to the ward-level and at the individual-level were associated with higher odds of physical (OR = 1.12, CI = 1.04, 1.20; OR = 1.40, CI = 1.15, 1.72) and sexual (OR = 1.15, CI = 1.08, 1.24; OR = 1.47, CI = 1.24, 1.74) IPV. The contextual effect was significant in the physical (0.23, se = 0.11, t = 2.12) and sexual (0.24, se = 0.09, t = 2.64) IPV models, suggesting that the ward-level association was larger than that at the individual-level. Adjustment for covariates slightly attenuated the ward-level association and eliminated the contextual association, suggesting that individual perceptions and the collective community phenomena were equally strong predictors of women's risk of IPV and should be taken into consideration when planning interventions. PVNS is a promising measure of social norms underpinning women's risk of IPV and warrants further psychometric testing.

Measuring the psychological drivers of participation in collective action to address violence against women in Mumbai, India

“…In a relatively nascent subject like women's collective action to prevent VAW, we have neither prior measures to compare against nor substantive theory backed by strong evidence. Past scale validation studies running into this problem have combined the two objectives into one [6].…”

“…They can be defined as interventions in which local individuals collaborate with external agents in identifying, prioritising, and tackling the causes of ill-health based on principles of bottom-up leadership and empowerment 5 . For example, interventions in South Africa and Uganda have trained volunteer activists to take action against violence, engaged community groups in reflection and action over unequal gender norms, and organised large-scale campaigns and marches [6][7][8] .…”

“…A key problem for the delivery of community mobilisation interventions is the extent to which they are able to successfully engage community members in activism 9 . Given the risks associated with standing up to perpetrators of violence, community mobilisation interventions primarily seek to engage individuals in addressing VAW as part of coordinated efforts rather than as isolated actors [6][7][8] . Collective action -defined here as voluntary joint action by a group of people in pursuit of a shared goal 10 -becomes a particularly apt construct for exploring activism.…”

Hurt or Help? Understanding Intimate Partner Violence in the Context of Social Norms as Practised in Rural Areas

“…Although various studies have attempted to unravel the influence of social norms on violence against women (Linos, Slopen, Subramanian, Berkman & Kawachi, 2013;Baldry & Pagliaro, 2014;Edwards, 2015;Strauss Gelles & Steinmetz, 2017;Clark et al, 2018;Cislaghi & Heise, 2018), there has not been much clarity on the association between IPV and social norms and how this promotes or hinders IPV prevention, particularly in rural areas. The few studies conducted (Roberto, Brossole, McPherson, Pulsifier & Brow, 2013;Hatcher, Colvin, Ndlovu & Dworkin, 2015;McCloskey et al, 2016) do not adequately focus on the influence of social norms in the perpetuation of IPV against women residing in rural areas.…”

Does intimate partner violence influence the utilization of maternal health services?

“…IPV during pregnancy leads negative consequences not only the mother but also affects the offspring women's health, and economy (11). It is claimed that the cost of IPV is five percent of the total gross domestic product [GDP] (12).…”