evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

SHARE (Safe Homes and Respect for Everyone) — Rakai, Uganda's Community-Mobilisation Trial on Partner Violence and HIV

Uganda · Rakai · See the Uganda profile

Top 42% 74/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Community mobilisation plus brief IPV screening at HIV testing, tested in 4 intervention vs 7 control clusters (11,448 people): women's past-year physical IPV 16%→12% (aPRR 0.79), but no effect on men's self-reported perpetration and HIV benefit not sustained.

Details

Promoter
Rakai Health Sciences Program / Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Period
2005–2009 (trial); results published 2014–2015
Keywords
intimate partner violence, community mobilisation, HIV prevention, social norms

Description

SHARE (Safe Homes and Respect for Everyone) was nested in the Rakai Community Cohort Study in Uganda and combined two components: a five-phase community mobilisation process (assessment, awareness-raising, network building, integrated action, consolidation) run by trained counsellors, educators, community volunteers and counselling aides, and a screening and brief intervention for women attending HIV counselling and testing, focused on safe disclosure and risk reduction.
The quasi-experimental evaluation enrolled 11,448 people aged 15–49 (5,337 in four intervention clusters, 6,111 in seven control clusters) between 2005 and 2009. At the second follow-up, women's past-year physical IPV was 12% in intervention vs 16% in control clusters (aPRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67–0.92) and sexual IPV 10% vs 13% (aPRR 0.80, 0.67–0.97). Overall HIV incidence was 0.87 vs 1.15 per 100 person-years (aIRR 0.67, 0.46–0.97).
The evidence has clear limits: only four of eleven clusters were allocated to the intervention for funding reasons, causing baseline imbalances; retention was about 75% and differed between arms; IPV was self-reported; emotional IPV did not differ and male-reported perpetration showed no effect; and the HIV difference was not maintained after the programme ended (2010–11). It is best read as a promising, integrated GBV–HIV model whose durability is unproven.

Read the full analysis: https://doaj.org/article/553dec643be3442182ebf342d6774627

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful