The effects of conflict and displacement on violence against adolescent girls in South Sudan: the case of adolescent girls in the Protection of Civilian sites in Juba

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of the sample: cohort of girls of adolescent age during the 2013 crisis (n = 527)

	%
Ethnicity
Not Nuer	9.4
Nuer	90.6
Religion
Catholic	46.9
Protestant	46.1
Other religion	7.1
Literacy
Not literate	21.8
Literate	78.2
Education
No education	19.7
Primary education	44.7
Secondary education+	35.6
Work status
Not working	46.2
Domestic work	3.6
Student	45.9
Other work	4.3
Income status
No income	54.1
From husband	9.0
From relative	34.0
Other income status	2.9
Fuel source
Wood, grass, leaves	24.3
Charcoal	75.7
Marital status
Never married	57.4
Nonmarital partner	13.9
Married	28.7
Village ever attacked
No	49.5
Yes	50.5
Other direct conflict experience
No	82.5
Yes	17.5
Total	100.0

Table 2. Prevalence of non-partner sexual violence amongst girls of adolescent age during the 2013 crisis (n = 527)

	%	95% C.I.
Ever experienced
Ever experienced any sexual NPSV	26.5	(21.0–32.9)
Ever forced to undress or strip	12.4	(8.5–17.9)
Ever experienced rape or attempted rape	21.9	(16.9–27.7)
Ever touched sexually when she didn’t want it	20.0	(15.5–25.3)
Experienced since the 2013 crisis began
Experienced any sexual NPSV since the 2013 crisis began	14.1	(10.0–19.5)

Table 3. Drivers of non-partner sexual violence among girls of adolescent age who experienced NPSV during the 2013 Crisis (n = 527)^a

	%	Bivariate	Multivariate 1^b	Multivariate 2^c
		OR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)
Age		1.20** (1.05–1.35)	1.17* (1.02–1.33)	1.15** (1.02–1.30)
Direct conflict exposure
No	8.4	1	1	1
Yes	40.8	7.48*** (4.06–13.79)	7.45*** (4.21–13.19)	7.21*** (3.94–13.17)

^aIn this table age was measured as a continuous variable.

^bAdjusted for socio-demographic factors (religion, literacy, education, employment, income source, fuel source, marital status) and conflict exposure (village ever attacked).

^cAdjusted for socio-demographic factors that were significant in previous models (ethnicity).

*P ≤ .05; **P ≤ .01; ***P ≤ .001.

Table 4. Most commonly reported male perpetrators of NPSV since the 2013 crisis began (n = 74)

Perpetrators	%
Male police	24.2
Male member of other community/tribe	23.6
Father/stepfather	6.7
Male armed actor	6.2
Other male family member	6.1
Male friend, neighbour, or classmate	5.7

Table 5. Lifetime experience of physical or sexual IPV perpetrated against girls who were adolescent age during the 2013 crisis (N = 283)

	%	95% C.I.
Physical and/or sexual IPV	43.1	(35.9–50.7)
Any physical IPV	30.4	(25.0–36.3)
Any sexual IPV	35.2	(27.7–43.5)

Table 6. Drivers of lifetime experience of IPV, perpetrated against girls who were adolescent age during the 2013 crisis (n = 283)^a

	%	Bivariate	Multivariate 1^b	Multivariate 2
		OR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)
Literacy
Not literate	41.5	1	1	1
Literate	43.8	1.10 (0.59–2.04)	5.37** (1.61–17.94)	3.65 (0.98–13.62)
Highest level of education
No education	44.2	1	1	1
Primary  school	42.6	0.94 (0.47–1.86)	0.21* (0.05–0.83)	0.25 (0.06–1.06)
Secondary or  higher	42.9	0.95 (0.44–2.04)	0.23 (0.04–1.18)	0.32 (0.07–1.46)
Fuel source
Wood, leaves, grass	61.0	1	1	1
Charcoal	37.4	0.38** (0.19–0.77)	0.33** (0.14–0.76)	0.49* (0.24–0.98)
Marital status
Non-marital partner	53.8	1	1	1
Married	43.7	1.02 (0.56–1.88)	0.28* (0.09–0.91)	0.48 (0.21–1.10)
Number of centrolling behaviours experienced
	–	1.34*** (1.15–1.58)	1.49*** (1.27–1.75)	1.40*** (1.20–1.64)
Agreement with inequitable gender and violence attitudes
	–	2.53 (0.90–7.11)	6.02* (1.55–23.43)	3.89* (1.17–12.97)
Village ever attacked
No	26.7	1	1	1
Yes	56.6	3.57*** (1.82–7.00)	2.79* (1.03–7.52)	2.37* (1.07–5.29)

^aIn this table, number of controlling behaviours experienced and agreement with inequitable gender and violence attitudes were measured as continuous variables.

^bAdjusting for socio-demographic factors (religion, literacy, education, employment, income source, fuel source, marital status) and conflict exposure.

*P ≤ .05; **P ≤ .01; ***P ≤ .001.