For young people intimate relationships are a key space in which health and wellbeing are strengthened or undermined. This study seeks to understand how contextual factors shape relationship quality among young heterosexual people in informal settlements in eThekwini Municipality, South Africa. In-depth interviews with (N=30) young (ages 18-30) heterosexual women and men living in informal settlements, stakeholders (N=13, aged 18+) and participatory activities with a Young People’s Advisory Group (N=12 people) from the same communities, were thematically analysed, focused on symbolic, economic-material and relational factors. The research showed high levels of stigmatisation around living in informal settlements, characterising young women as breaking ‘traditional’ gender norms and young men as being ‘thugs’, all of which negatively impacted relationship quality. Material contexts included lack of decent work, leading to high levels of dependency and sense of individual failure and poor-quality housing influencing relational intimacy and generated insecurity in relationships. Finally, relational dynamics included a lack of emotionally supportive friendships, and the perception of government not caring about young people and their challenges. In multiple ways, enacted and internalised stigma was expressed in how young people were treated by others and felt about themselves, and this further impacted negatively on their intimate relationships. Interventions seeking to improve relationship quality should include aspects supporting young people to discuss these experiences and how it impacts on their lives. Community-level interventions addressing gender norms should additionally consider how to improve the material contexts of people’s lives. • Describes unique ‘drivers’ of relationship quality in informal settlements • Community and gendered stigmatization key to shaping relationship dynamics • Housing creates relationship stresses and impacts intimacy
Gibbs et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: