Search

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most common form of gender-based violence affecting women and girls worldwide and is exacerbated in humanitarian settings. There is evidence that neighborhood social processes influence IPV. Perceived neighborhood social cohesion (P-NSC)—a measure of community trust, attachment, safety, and reciprocity—may be protective against women's experience of and men's perpetration of IPV and controlling behaviors. Methods: A quantitative social network study, comprised of individual verbally-administered surveys, was conducted in Bokolmayo refugee camp in Dollo Ado, Ethiopia in 2019. In total, 302 Somali refugees (147 women and 155 men), sampled using snowball sampling, participated in the data collection. Logistic regression was used to examine P-NSC and its association with IPV to inform an IPV and HIV prevention intervention. Results: Low P-NSC and men's perpetration of physical IPV in the past month were strongly associated (adjusted AOR = 23.6, 95% CI: 6.2–89.9). Low P-NSC, conversely, was associated with decreased odds of women's experiences of controlling behaviors by an intimate partner in the past year (AOR = 0.1, 95% CI: 0.0–0.5). Women's experiences of other forms of IPV, including physical, sexual, and emotional IPV within the past year, were not associated with P-NSC in adjusted models; P-NSC was significantly associated with all forms of IPV in unadjusted models. Conclusion: Social cohesion programs and other neighborhood approaches to improve P-NSC should be explored as potential avenues to prevent and reduce IPV, with a focus on male IPV and controlling behavior perpetration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Returning results to participants of environmental exposure studies has become more common in recent years. Despite evidence of benefits for study participants, there are challenges in communicating results to people with limited resources or capacity to mitigate chemical exposures. We interviewed N = 54 participants and compared exposure report-back conducted in 2010-2013 across three susceptible study populations: 1) low-income pregnant individuals in the Chemicals in Our Bodies (CIOB) study; 2) the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) cohort; and 3) early childhood educators (ECE). Report-back differed between the cross-sectional studies (CIOB and ECE), which offered an opportunity to consult with research staff by phone or email, and the prospective cohort study (CHAMACOS), which allowed for participants to discuss individual and group-level results directly with researchers at a community meeting. Participants in all three studies were motivated to participate by children's health and wanted more information about health implications and exposure reduction strategies, with cost and limited resources cited as common barriers to change. We observed overall positive experiences with report-back across studies, with improved environmental health literacy and constructive learning experiences that were most evident in CHAMACOS. While many noted individual actions they had made or intended to make to reduce exposures, CHAMACOS participants were more likely to mention systems-level changes achieved through actions such as contacting decision-makers and raising community awareness. Our findings suggest that researchers may have a unique opportunity to support environmental health literacy and informed action at both the individual and community or policy levels through long-term study engagement, various forms of direct consultation with study participants, and thoughtful report-back methods that leverage existing tools and are sensitive to barriers faced by specific study populations. This work informs best practices for communicating chemical exposure results among sensitive or highly exposed communities., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)