Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Nov 5;17(1):19232.
doi: 10.7448/IAS.17.1.19232. eCollection 2014.

The impact of SASA!, a community mobilization intervention, on reported HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics in Kampala, Uganda

Nambusi Kyegombe  1 , Tanya Abramsky  2 , Karen M Devries  2 , Elizabeth Starmann  2 , Lori Michau  3 , Janet Nakuti  3 , Tina Musuya  4 , Lori Heise  2 , Charlotte Watts  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The impact of SASA!, a community mobilization intervention, on reported HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics in Kampala, Uganda

Nambusi Kyegombe et al. J Int AIDS Soc. .

Abstract

Introduction: Intimate partner violence (IPV) violates women's human rights, and it is a serious public health concern associated with increased HIV risk. SASA!, a phased community mobilization intervention, engages communities to prevent IPV and promote gender equity. The SASA! study assessed the community-level impact of SASA! on reported HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics.

Methods: Data were collected as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted between 2007 and 2012 in eight communities in Kampala. An adjusted cluster-level intention to treat analysis, compares secondary outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. The qualitative evaluation explored participants' subjective experience of SASA!. A total of 82 in-depth interviews were audio recorded at follow-up, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Men in intervention communities were significantly more likely than controls to report a broad range of HIV-protective behaviours, including higher levels of condom use (aRR 2.03, 95% CI 1.22-3.39), HIV testing (aRR 1.50, 95% CI 1.13-2.00) and fewer concurrent partners (aRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.97). They were also more likely to report increased joint decision-making (aRR 1.92, 95% CI 1.27-2.91), greater male participation in household tasks (aRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.09-2.01), more open communication and greater appreciation of their partner's work inside (aRR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04-1.66) and outside (aRR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08-2.06) the home. For women, all outcomes were in the hypothesized direction, but effect sizes were smaller. Only some achieved statistical significance. Women in intervention communities were significantly more likely to report being able to refuse sex with their partners (aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00-1.35), joint decision-making (aRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.78) and more open communication on a number of indicators. Qualitative interviews suggest that shifts operated through broader improvements in relationships, including increased trust and cooperation, participants' greater awareness of the connections between HIV and IPV and their resultant desire to improve their relationships. Barriers to change include partial uptake of SASA!, partner resistance, fear and entrenched previous beliefs.

Conclusions: SASA! impacted positively on reported HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics at a community level, especially among men. Social change programmes focusing on IPV and gender equity could play an important role in HIV prevention efforts.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00790959.

Keywords: HIV-related risk behaviours; SASA!; Uganda; community mobilization; intimate partner violence; relationship dynamics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
SASA!'s intended impact on HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The four phases of SASA!.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Consort diagram of the SASA! Study.
Figure A1
Figure A1
SASA! part of the fabric of the community.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Devries KM, Mak JYT, García-Moreno C, Petzold M, Child JC, Falder G, et al. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science. 2013;340(6140):1527–8. - PubMed
    1. Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C. Intimate partner violence and women's physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet. 2008;371(9619):1165–72. - PubMed
    1. Stöckl H, Devries K, Rotstein A, Abrahams N, Campbell J, Watts C, et al. The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: a systematic review. Lancet. 2013;382(9895):859–65. - PubMed
    1. Devries KM, Mak JY, Bacchus LJ, Child JC, Falder G, Petzold M, et al. Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001439. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen H, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts C. Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. Lancet. 2006;368:1260–9. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data