Reproductive Coercion and Partner Violence among College Women

Sutherland, Melissa A.; Fantasia, Heidi Collins; Fontenot, Holly B.

doi:10.1111/1552-6909.12550

Cited by 56 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…19,20 Our findings are also consistent with the known associations between reproductive coercion and other coercive, controlling behaviors found in the context of relationship abuse, 13,34 with an overall high prevalence of IPV (54%) noted in our sample. The time frame chosen for reproductive coercion measurement (past one year for this study) likely plays a role in variations found in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Reproductive coercion among women living with HIV

Anderson

Grace

Miller

2017

Aids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Unintended pregnancy is prevalent among women living with HIV, and is associated with poor health outcomes for women and babies. Reproductive coercion may be one unexplored mechanism for this elevated risk. Methods Past year reproductive coercion data were obtained via self-reported survey from a sample of women receiving HIV specialty care in Baltimore, MD. Results Eleven of the 67 women (16.4%) included in the sample reported past year reproductive coercion. Almost two thirds (64%) of women reporting reproductive coercion were also positive for recent PTSD symptoms compared to 27% of women who did not report reproductive coercion (Fisher’s Exact p=0.033). Discussion The prevalence of reproductive coercion among our sample of in care women living with HIV suggests that attention should be paid to the impact of partner influence and coercive behaviors regarding pregnancy intentions. Because of the many potential negative consequences of unintended pregnancy for women living with HIV, it is important that providers be aware of such abuse and steps that can be taken to identify and support patients who are experiencing reproductive coercion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Reproductive coercion among women living with HIV

Anderson

Grace

Miller

2017

Aids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the the most common RC behaviours is for male partners to tell women not to use contraception 26. Partners themselves may also refuse to use condoms or tell a woman later that they did not use a condom 27.…”

Section: Forms Of Reproductive Control Perpetrated By Intimate Partnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive control by others: means, perpetrators and effects

Rowlands

Walker

2019

BMJ Sex Reprod Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundReproductive control of women by others comprises a wide range of behaviours, from persuasion to pressure such as emotional blackmail, societal or family expectations, through to threats of or actual physical violence. It is defined as behaviours that interfere with women’s reproductive autonomy as well as any actions that pressurise or coerce a woman into initiating or terminating a pregnancyMethodNarrative review based on a search of medical and social science literature.ResultsReproductive control by others includes control or coercion over decisions about becoming pregnant and also about continuing or terminating a pregnancy. It can be carried out by intimate partners, the wider family, or as part of criminal behaviour. One form is contraceptive sabotage, which invalidates the consent given to sex. Contraceptive sabotage includes the newly-described behaviour of ‘stealthing’: the covert removal of a condom during sex. Reproductive control by others is separate from intimate partner violence but there are similarities and the phenomena overlap. Reproductive control by others is reported by as many as one quarter of women attending sexual and reproductive healthcare services. Those treating such women should be familiar with the concept and how to ameliorate its effects. Screening questions for its detection have been developed as well as interventions to reduce its risk.ConclusionsReproductive control by others is common and those working in women’s health should be familiar with the concept and with screening tools used to detect it.

show abstract

“…In both studies, RC was associated with statistically significant, elevated odds of unintended pregnancy [3, 4]. Another clinic-based study by Clark and colleagues found that 16% of women seeking routine care at obstetrics and gynecology clinics had experienced RC [16], while a recent study found that 8% of almost 6,000 college students reported RC, providing evidence beyond the clinical setting [17]. RC has also been assessed in global settings using items modified from the RCS, with evidence that RC may be perpetrated both by partners and extended family [18, 19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric properties and refinement of the Reproductive Coercion Scale

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Identification and refinement of psychometric properties of the Reproductive Coercion Scale (RCS) for use in survey research and clinical practice. Study Design Young women ages 16–29 seeking services in 24 Pennsylvania and 5 California family planning clinics completed questionnaires. Data were pooled for analysis (n=4,674), and underlying domains were assessed using Horn’s Parallel Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis. Multidimensional item response theory was used to refine the scale and assess reliability and validity of a short-form RCS. Results The full, 9-item RCS had two underlying domains: pregnancy coercion and condom manipulation. Five items were retained in the short form: three about pregnancy coercion (e.g. “told you not to use birth control…”) and two for condom manipulation (e.g., “taken off the condom while you were having sex…”; one of these items is the combination of two original items on damaging the condom that were combined because of similar statistical properties and face validity and a third item on removing the condom was retained on its own). Recent reproductive coercion was reported by 6.7% and 6.3% of the sample with the full and short-form RCS, respectively. Characteristics of women reporting reproductive coercion were similar with both forms. Conclusion Findings indicate that reproductive coercion includes pregnancy coercion and deliberate manipulation of condoms to promote pregnancy. Moreover, women experience RC across a continuum of severity. We selected items that varied in RC severity and discrimination to generate a 5-item short-form RCS for survey research and clinical practice.

show abstract

Reproductive Coercion and Partner Violence among College Women

Cited by 56 publications

References 24 publications

Reproductive coercion among women living with HIV

Reproductive coercion among women living with HIV

Reproductive control by others: means, perpetrators and effects

Psychometric properties and refinement of the Reproductive Coercion Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About