Back to History Current Version

Modern Man Challenge Intimate Partner Violence Study

Last registered on June 10, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Modern Man Challenge Intimate Partner Violence Study
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004245
Initial registration date
May 28, 2019

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 10, 2019, 5:05 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Princeton University
PI Affiliation

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2018-10-22
End date
2019-07-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly recognized as a major threat to global health and well-being. As a relatively new area of study and direct intervention, there are a small number of evidence-based strategies for reducing IPV and the causal pathways through which these strategies reduce IPV are often unclear. The Modern Man Challenge (MMC) study seeks to address some of these gaps by exploring new ways to mitigate and prevent IPV in a low-income, post-conflict setting by targeting behavior change in men delivered on a scalable platform. The MMC promotes gender-equitable, violence-free relationships by directly linking men to guidance on shared household management, sex-positive communication skills, joint financial planning, and emotional regulation skills. The strategies and methods developed by MMC emerged from a combination of human-centered design, field-wide “best practices”, and research on effective behavior change across a range of outcomes. Through a series of iterative prototyping and programmatic testing beginning in 2017, these concepts have been tailored to fit the Liberian context and encourage participation. These previous programmatic tests have laid the groundwork for this study, which will assess the impact of this program through a small-scale cluster-randomized study in Monrovia, Liberia.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Annan, Jeannie, Günther Fink and Betsy Paluck. 2019. "Modern Man Challenge Intimate Partner Violence Study ." AEA RCT Registry. June 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4245
Former Citation
Annan, Jeannie, Günther Fink and Betsy Paluck. 2019. "Modern Man Challenge Intimate Partner Violence Study ." AEA RCT Registry. June 10. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4245/history/47762
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Taking advantage of available mobile technologies, the MMC intervention uses interactive SMS and curated messaging content to carve out a space for men to critically engage with their masculine identity in the context of their partner relationships. The MMC builds on behavioral science by capitalizing on men’s existing aspirational identities to encourage positive behavior change and by providing instructions to achieve their goals through tangible actions in their relationships. The MMC promotes gender-equitable, violence-free relationships by directly linking men to guidance on shared household management, sex-positive communication skills, joint financial planning, and emotional regulation skills Men in the treatment clusters attended an MMC introductory event. At this event, there was a brief introduction about the importance for a man to grow and become stronger with the Liberia’s modern times. After the introduction, a 10-question quiz about intimate relationships was handed out to the participants. The quiz asked true/false questions about gender roles and expectations in intimate relationships (e.g. “even though men are stronger, women should do all the hard work in the house”, “a modern man always tries to learn of their woman's sexual happiness”). After all the men returned their completed quiz, the study staff guided a discussion and reviewed the correct “modern man” answers with the group. The participating men were then told they may be invited to join a relationship-strengthening, interactive SMS activity called the “Modern Man Challenge”. Finally, there was a lottery at the end of the event and one man was awarded 5usd phone credit.
Intervention Start Date
2018-10-22
Intervention End Date
2018-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The primary endpoint is a composite intimate partner violence score based on reports by the female partners of male study subjects.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
While most IPV interventions measure IPV using a binary outcome, this approach may oversimplify the large variation in types of IPV, a well as their frequency and severity. Given the design of the MMC program as a light-touch, harm-reduction program, we expect a reduction in frequency and severity may be more likely than a cessation of violence in a home. Following one of the examples of a more nuanced measurement discussed in an IPV presented by Lori Heise in 2018 , we will use a unidimensional item response theory (IRT) model to compute a single latent IPV propensity score for all study subjects. We hope this will let us compare any differences in the dimension of IPV across the treatment and control groups.

Using IRT, we will create two IPV outcome measures. The first will be comprehensive of all IPV and controlling behaviors indicators (see the full list below). The second will only include indicators of physical and sexual violence (variables 20-46 in the list below).

The 2pl-IRT model will include the following 46 binary IPV variables:
1. Respondent’s partner tries to keep her from seeing her friends.
2. Respondent’s partner restricts contact with her family of birth.
3. Respondent’s partner insists on knowing where she is at all times.
4. Respondent’s partner ignores her and treats her indifferently.
5. Respondent’s partner gets angry if she speaks with another man.
6. Respondent’s partner is often suspicious that she is unfaithful.
7. Respondent’s partner expects her to ask his permission before seeking healthcare for herself.
8. Respondent was insulted or made to feel bad about herself by her partner once in the last 6 months.
9. Respondent was insulted or made to feel bad about herself by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
10. Respondent was insulted or made to feel bad about herself by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
11. Respondent was belittled or humiliated in front of other people by her partner once in the last 6 months.
12. Respondent was belittled or humiliated in front of other people by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
13. Respondent was belittled or humiliated in front of other people by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
14. Respondent was scared or intimidated on purpose by her partner once in the last 6 months.
15. Respondent was scared or intimidated on purpose by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
16. Respondent was scared or intimidated on purpose by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
17. Respondent was threatened or someone she cared about was threatened to be hurt by her partner once in the last 6 months.
18. Respondent was threatened or someone she cared about was threatened to be hurt by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
19. Respondent was threatened or someone she cared about was threatened to be hurt by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
20. Respondent was slapped or had something that could harm her thrown at her by her partner once in the last 6 months.
21. Respondent was slapped or had something that could harm her thrown at her by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
22. Respondent was slapped or had something that could harm her thrown at her by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
23. Respondent was pushed, shoved, or had her hair pulled by her partner once in the last 6 months.
24. Respondent was pushed, shoved, or had her hair pulled by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
25. Respondent was pushed, shoved, or had her hair pulled by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
26. Respondent was hit with a closed fist or something else that could hurt her by her partner once in the last 6 months.
27. Respondent was hit with a closed fist or something else that could hurt her by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
28. Respondent was hit with a closed fist or something else that could hurt her by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
29. Respondent was kicked, dragged, or beaten up by her partner once in the last 6 months.
30. Respondent was kicked, dragged, or beaten up by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
31. Respondent was kicked, dragged, or beaten up by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
32. Respondent was choked or burnt on purpose by her partner once in the last 6 months.
33. Respondent was choked or burnt on purpose by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
34. Respondent was choked or burnt on purpose by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
35. Respondent was threatened by a knife, gun, or other weapon or had a knife, gun, or other weapon used against her by her partner once in the last 6 months.
36. Respondent was threatened by a knife, gun, or other weapon or had a knife, gun, or other weapon used against her by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
37. Respondent was threatened by a knife, gun, or other weapon or had a knife, gun, or other weapon used against her by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
38. Respondent was physically forced to have sexual intercourse when she did not want to by her partner once in the last 6 months.
39. Respondent was physically forced to have sexual intercourse when she did not want to by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
40. Respondent was physically forced to have sexual intercourse when she did not want to by her partner many times in the last 6 months.
41. Respondent had sexual intercourse when she did not want to because she was afraid of what her partner might do once in the last 6 months.
42. Respondent had sexual intercourse when she did not want to because she was afraid of what her partner might do few times in the last 6 months.
43. Respondent had sexual intercourse when she did not want to because she was afraid of what her partner might do many times in the last 6 months.
44. Respondent was forced to do a somethings sexual that she found degrading or humiliating by her partner once in the last 6 months.
45. Respondent was forced to do a somethings sexual that she found degrading or humiliating by her partner a few times in the last 6 months.
46. Respondent was forced to do a somethings sexual that she found degrading or humiliating by her partner many times in the last 6 months.

We will compute two separate scores: one for emotional violence, and one for other forms of IPV.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Men’s controlling behavior in a relationship, using indicators for the from the WHO IPV Module.
● Intimate Partner Violence Attitudes and Perceptions, from men’s data, women’s data, and
composite men and women’s data. The indicators used to measure this will be Decision-making
[DHS].
a. For women, additional questions after standard decision making question about 1)
whether the partner feels her opinion is valued even in cases where she does not describe
herself as the main decision maker, 2) who makes the final decision in the case of
disagreement, and 3) whether she has taken efforts to change the way specific decisions
are made to reflect her preferred view.
● Gendered Decision Making Attitudes and Perceptions, from men’s data, women’s data, and
composite men and women’s data. The indicators used to measure this include attitudes and
beliefs about female roles [DHS].
● Relationship Quality of Intimate Partners, from men’s data, women’s data, and composite men
and women’s data. The indicators used to measure these communications [Vijaya Development
Resource Center and Equal Access Empowerment Survey, Q5 section], closeness [questions
based on the IOS Scale], conflict [Vijaya Development Resource Center and Equal Access
Empowerment Survey, Q5 section, made gender neutral], enjoyment of activities together
[including International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), Section 5, enjoying time
with partner]
a. For men, the following will also be included to measure relationship quality: sexual
history and value of partner’s sexual pleasure [including questions from International
Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), Section 5, sexual behaviors] and
acceptance of men’s sexual aggression [including questions from Acceptance of Modern
Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA)]
b. For women, the following will also be included to measure relationship quality:
indicators about sexual agency, history motivation, and pleasure.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study is designed as a small-scale cluster-randomized trial, with 8 treated, and 8 control clusters.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Min-max randomization using Stata based on community characteristics collected in previous study (computer based randomization).
Randomization Unit
Cluster-randomization.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
16
Sample size: planned number of observations
600 men and their female partners.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
300 men and their female partners in each arm - a total sample of approximately 1200 participants across 16 clusters.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The study is powered to detect a one standard deviation difference in the latent IPV score assuming an DEFF of 2, 20% loss to follow-up, power 0.9, and alpha=0.05 with two-sided testing.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Human Subjects Committee for Innovations for Poverty Action IRB-USA
IRB Approval Date
2018-09-14
IRB Approval Number
N/A
IRB Name
University of Liberia Office of the Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2018-09-09
IRB Approval Number
NA
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials