non-IPV domestic violence into a single category. However, we decided to change this structure to improve parallelism with the other outcomes.

As described in our pre-analysis plan, we constructed indicators of controlling behavior, emotional violence, physical violence and sexual violence as dummy variables, equal to 1 if any question about exposure to the specific type of violence in that category during the previous 12 months received an affirmative response. This structure of outcome measure is used worldwide (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office 2014). The indicators of physical or sexual violence by a household member were each generated by a single question. The indicators of physical or sexual violence by a nonhousehold member included responses to questions regarding violence from any of the following individuals: friend or family, authority, random stranger, and other. If any question was answered within the set of questions comprising the index, we included that woman in the analysis. However, if she did not answer any of the questions within the category, we considered this a non-response and did not include her in the analysis of that particular index.

Summary statistics from the “non-empowered” control group indicate that just under one half of women reported experiencing controlling behavior by their spouse, just under one third reported emotional and physical violence, and just under one fifth reported sexual violence (Table 3). These levels of IPV are significantly higher than those reported in the Lao National Survey on Women’s Health and Life Experiences, where 10%, 4% and 3.1% of respondents reported exposure to emotional violence, physical and sexual violence respectively in the last 12 months prior to the interview. Our data exceeds these rates by a factor of seven for physical violence, a factor of six for sexual violence, and by a factor of 3 for emotional violence. There are several possibilities that explain this discrepancy. Firstly, these poor, rural women may have a higher experience of violence than the national average. Secondly, and, perhaps, most importantly, more women may have felt comfortable revealing their experience of violence using our ACASI interviewing technique rather than the in-person approach used in the national survey.

Summary statistics on non-IPV GBV also indicate higher levels than reported on the national survey. Between 7% and 12% of respondents reported having experienced physical or sexual violence, either inside the home with a non-partner or from someone outside the home (Table 3). These numbers are at least twice as high as the national prevalence rates reported in the Lao National Survey on Women’s Health and Life Experiences, for physical and sexual violence from a non-partner: at 5.1% and 5.3%, respectively.<sup>11</sup> We note that due to the sensitive nature of these questions, non-response is high, as is typical for surveys on IPV (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office 2014). For our IPV variables, non-response reached over 40% for some of the questions regarding controlling behavior, while the non-

> 11 The Lao National Survey on Women’s Health and Life Experiences does not collect data on exposure to nonpartner physical and sexual violence over the last 12 months.

11