Search

Abstract Background Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is prevalent in conflict-affected settings. Yet, there is limited knowledge about the risk factors that influence men’s use of IPVAW in conflict-affected settings. This paper adopts a transdisciplinary perspective to understand how experiences hypothesized to increase men’s use of IPVAW relate to each other and to men’s use of IPVAW. The findings may help researchers and interventionists to better select and target interventions for IPVAW in conflict-affected settings. Methods We used baseline data from the Tushinde Ujeuri project in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Men with at least partial data for the variables of interest were included in the analysis (n = 2080). We estimated a structural equation model that explored how five constructs – interpersonal violence, mental health, socioeconomic adversity, gender inequitable attitudes, and conflict violence – influenced men’s self-reported past-year use of physical and/or sexual IPVAW. Results The model had acceptable fit (χ2 = 1576.574, p = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.041; CLI = 0.882; SRMR = 0.055). There was a statistically significant path from interpersonal violence to IPVAW (β = 0.875; OR = 2.40). Interpersonal violence also was linked to gender inequitable attitudes (β = 0.364), which were linked to increased use of IPVAW (β = 0.180; OR = 1.20). Moreover, interpersonal violence was linked to trauma symptoms (β = 0.331), which were linked to increased use of IPVAW (β = 0.238; OR = 1.27). Use of IPVAW decreased as conflict exposures increased (β=-0.036; OR = 0.96), and there was no path from socioeconomic adversity to IPVAW. Conclusions Our findings suggest interpersonal violence exposures, trauma symptoms, and gender inequitable attitudes are all risk factors for the use of IPVAW in a conflict-affected setting. While continuing to focus on gender inequitable attitudes and norms, interventionists should also consider addressing men’s experiences of victimization and mental wellbeing. Doing so can help to improve trauma symptoms and may hold promise to reduce IPVAW in conflict-affected settings.

BackgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs.Methods and findingsWe conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [-.47, -.11], p-value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [-0.07, -.34], p-value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [-0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples.ConclusionsControlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during "lean", pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health.

Abstract Background Despite the growth of psychotherapy trials in low- and middle-income countries, there have been limited follow-up studies of more than 2 years. This study follows up female sexual violence survivors approximately 6 years after completing a 12-session group cognitive processing therapy (CPT) program in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Methods Baseline trial data were collected in December 2010 from 134 women in 7 study villages randomly allocated to CPT. Study women were over 18 years, reported personally experiencing or witnessing sexual violence, and reported elevated depression, anxiety and/or posttraumatic stress symptoms. Women were followed up (1) post-treatment (6-months after baseline); (2) 6 months later; (3) 12 months later; and (4) in March 2017 (6.3 years after baseline). At the long-term follow-up, 103 women (77%) in 6 of 7 CPT villages were re-assessed; one village was not visited due to ongoing insecurity. Results We found strong continued intervention effects; nearly all women maintained treatment impacts over the first two years; at long-term follow-up, approximately half continued to maintain low symptom scores. Relapse rates for probable PTSD and probable depression and anxiety were 20%. Conclusions This study extends prior research to show that treatment impacts can be maintained for several years despite experiences of ongoing trauma. The women described continuing to meet with the women in their therapy group and using the skills they learned in the psychotherapy, providing evidence of the potential for these programs to provide valuable social supports and skills that people use as they continue to face adversity.