Table 3

Results from evaluated interventions shifting norms to prevent/delay child marriage, by focus of norm change programming (N=12)

Lead author and yearCountry/countriesReference groupsEffect on norms related to child marriageEffect on child marriage outcomes
Comprehensive intentional norm change programming
IFS, 201824IndiaAdolescent girls, community membersNo stat sig. effectNo stat sig. effect
Munthali et al, 202130MalawiAdolescent girls, adolescent boys,
community members		MixedPositive
Sieverding et al, 201638EgyptAdolescent girls, adolescent boys,
community members		No stat sig. effectPositive
Limited intentional norm change programming
Erulkar et al201739Burkina FasoAdolescent girls, community members, parentsNone reportedMixed
Melnikas et al, 202125India, Malawi, Mali and NigerAdolescent girls, community members,MixedMixed/
Positive
Stark et al, 201840Democratic Rep of the CongoAdolescent girls, caregiversNo stat sig. effectNo stat sig. effect
Stark et al, 201841EthiopiaAdolescent girls, caregiversPositiveNo stat sig. effect
Little/no intentional norm change programming
Amin et al, 201828BangladeshAdolescent girlsNone reportedPositive
Austrian et al, 201842ZambiaAdolescent girlsNo stat sig. effectNo stat sig. effect
Buchmann et al, 201729BangladeshAdolescent girls, ages 10–19.
Special incentive focused on 15–17.		No stat sig. effectMixed
Sivasankaran et al, 201427IndiaWomenPositiveMixed
Nanda et al, 201626IndiaAdolescent girlsNo stat. sig. effectNo stat. sig. effect

  • stat. sig, statistically significant.