Are school-based interventions to prevent dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence equally effective for all students? Systematic review and equity analysis of moderation analyses in randomised trials
•Gender-based and dating violence cause health inequities for adolescents.•School-based interventions may not work equally well for all students.•Moderator analyses from randomised trials suggest uneven effectiveness by sex.•Moderators relating to other equity-relevant factors remain poorly explored...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Preventive medicine reports 2023-08, Vol.34, p.102277-102277, Article 102277 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | •Gender-based and dating violence cause health inequities for adolescents.•School-based interventions may not work equally well for all students.•Moderator analyses from randomised trials suggest uneven effectiveness by sex.•Moderators relating to other equity-relevant factors remain poorly explored.
School-based interventions for the prevention of dating and relationship violence (DRV) and gender-based violence (GBV) take advantage of universal opportunities for intervention. Information on differential effectiveness of interventions is important to assess if they ameliorate or worsen social gradients in specific outcomes. This is especially important in DRV and GBV prevention given the gendered context of these behaviours and their common aetiologies in patriarchal gender norms, and social acceptance in school contexts of sexual harassment, such as catcalling or unwanted groping. We undertook a systematic review of moderation analyses in randomised trials of school-based interventions for DRV and GBV prevention. We searched 21 databases and used supplementary search methods without regard to publication type, language or year of publication, and synthesised moderation tests relating to equity-relevant characteristics (principally sex and prior history of the outcome) for DRV and GBV perpetration and victimisation. Across 23 included outcome evaluations, programme effects on DRV victimisation were not moderated by gender or prior experience of DRV victimisation, but DRV perpetration outcomes were greater for boys, particularly for emotional and physical DRV perpetration. Findings for GBV outcomes were counterintuitive. Our findings suggest that practitioners should carefully monitor local intervention effectiveness and equity to ensure that interventions are working as intended. However, one of the most surprising findings from our analysis—with clear relevance for uncertainties in practice—was that differential impacts by sexuality or sexual minority status were not frequently evaluated. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2211-3355 2211-3355 |