Concordance and discordance in couples' IPV reporting.

Concordance and discordance in couples' IPV reporting.</p

Variability and validity of intimate partner violence reporting by couples in Tanzania

<div><p>In recent years, major global institutions have amplified their efforts to address intimate partner violence (IPV) against women—a global health and human rights violation affecting 15–71% of reproductive aged women over their lifetimes. Still, some scholars remain concerned about the validity of instruments used for IPV assessment in population-based studies. In this paper, we conducted two validation analyses using novel data from 450 women-men dyads across nine villages in Northern Tanzania. <u>First</u>, we examined the level of inter-partner agreement in reporting of men’s physical, sexual, emotional and economic IPV against women in the last three and twelve months prior to the survey, ever in the relationship, and during pregnancy. <u>Second</u>, we conducted a convergent validity analysis to compare the relative efficacy of men’s self-reports of perpetration and women’s of victimization as a valid indicator of IPV against Tanzanian women using logistic regression models with village-level clustered errors. We found that, for every violence type across the recall periods of the last three months, the last twelve months and ever in the relationship, at least one in three couples disagreed about IPV occurrences in the relationship. Couples’ agreement about physical, sexual and economic IPV during pregnancy was high with 86–93% of couples reporting concordantly. Also, men’s self-reported perpetration had statistically significant associations with at least as many validated risk factors as had women’s self-reported victimization. This finding suggests that men’s self-reports are at least as valid as women’s as an indicator of IPV against women in Northern Tanzania. We recommend more validation studies are conducted in low-income countries, and that data on relationship factors affecting IPV reports and reporting are made available along with data on IPV occurrences. Keywords: Intimate partner violence; measurement; validity; survey research; Tanzania.</p></div

Multiple logistic regression analysis showing factors associated with men's IPV perpetration in last three months, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015.

<p>Multiple logistic regression analysis showing factors associated with men's IPV perpetration in last three months, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015.</p

Female and male partners' characteristics, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015–2016.

<p>Female and male partners' characteristics, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015–2016.</p

Couples agreement (Kappa) on intimate partner violence, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015–2016.

<p>Couples agreement (Kappa) on intimate partner violence, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015–2016.</p

Prevalence of physical, sexual, economic, emotional or any form of violence in the last three months, as reported by men, women, either men or women, and both men and women, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015–2016.

<p>Prevalence of physical, sexual, economic, emotional or any form of violence in the last three months, as reported by men, women, either men or women, and both men and women, n = 450 couples, Tanzania, 2015–2016.</p

Percentage distribution of couples' cordordant and discordant reporting of four types of IPV in the last three or twelve months prior to the survey, ever in the relationship, or during pregnancy, Tanzania, 2015.

<p>Percentage distribution of couples' cordordant and discordant reporting of four types of IPV in the last three or twelve months prior to the survey, ever in the relationship, or during pregnancy, Tanzania, 2015.</p

Percentage of partner agreement in male and female partners' reports of IPV perpetration and victimization, by IPV type and timing, Tanzania, 2015.

<p>Percentage of partner agreement in male and female partners' reports of IPV perpetration and victimization, by IPV type and timing, Tanzania, 2015.</p

Inclusivity in global research.

Nearly one quarter (600,000) of all neonatal deaths worldwide per year occur in India. To reduce neonatal mortality, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare established neonatal care units, including neonatal intensive care units and specialized neonatal care units to provide immediate care at birth, resuscitation for asphyxiation, postnatal care, follow up for high-risk newborns, immunization, and referral for additional or complex healthcare services. Despite these efforts, neonatal mortality remains high, and measures taken to reduce mortality have been severely challenged by multiple problems caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. In this qualitative study, we conducted seven focus group discussions with newborn care unit nurses and pediatric residents and 35 key informant interviews with pediatricians, residents, nurses, annual equipment maintenance contractors, equipment manufacturers, and Ministry personnel in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra between December 2019 and November 2020. The goal of the study was to understand barriers and facilitators to providing optimal care to neonates, including the challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 exacerbated existing barriers to providing optimal care to neonates in these newborn care units. As a result of Covid-19, we found the units were even more short-staffed than usual, with trained pediatric nurses and essential equipment diverted from newborn care to attend to patients with Covid-19. Regular training of neonatal nursing staff was also disrupted due to Covid-19, leaving many staff without the skills to provide optimate care to neonates. Infection control was also exacerbated by Covid-19. This study highlights the barriers to providing optimal care for neonates were made even more challenging during Covid-19 because of the diversion of critically important neonatal equipment and staff trained to use that equipment to Covid-19 wards. The barriers at the individual, facility, and systems levels will remain challenging as the Covid-19 pandemic continues.</div

Participants in key informant interviews and focus groups by facility type.

Participants in key informant interviews and focus groups by facility type.</p