Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34932570›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Women's perceptions and experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Jessica E Moulton, Martha Isela Vazquez Corona, Cathy Vaughan, Meghan A Bohren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Typology, Risk, and Protective Factors of Reproductive Coercion: A Narrative Literature Review of Studies from the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe.International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica E MoultonGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7172-9470
Martha Isela Vazquez CoronaGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2061-9540
Cathy VaughanGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Meghan A BohrenGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReproductive coercion and abuse is a major public health issue, with significant effects on the health and well-being of women. Reproductive coercion and abuse includes any form of behaviour that intentionally controls another person's reproductive choices. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis is to explore women's experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse globally, to broaden understanding of the different ways reproductive coercion and abuse is perpetrated, perceived and experienced across settings and socio-cultural contexts.

methodWe searched Medline, CINAHL and Embase for eligible studies from inception to 25th February 2021. Primary studies with a qualitative study design that focused on the experiences and perceptions of women who have encountered reproductive coercion and abuse were eligible for inclusion. Titles and abstracts, and full texts were screened by independent reviewers. We extracted data from included studies using a form designed for this synthesis and assessed methodological limitations using CASP. We used Thomas and Harden's thematic analysis approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence, and the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in review findings.

resultsWe included 33 studies from twelve countries in South Asia, the Asia Pacific, North America, South America, Africa and Europe. Most studies used in-depth interviews and focus group discussions to discuss women's experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse. Reproductive coercion and abuse manifested in a range of behaviours including control of pregnancy outcome, pregnancy pressure or contraceptive sabotage. There were a range of reasons cited for reproductive coercion and abuse, including control of women, rigid gender roles, social inequalities and family pressure. Women's different responses to reproductive coercion and abuse included using covert contraception and feelings of distress, anger and trauma. Across contexts, perpetration and experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse were influenced by different factors including son preferences and social exclusion.

conclusionsWe reflect on the importance of socio-cultural factors in understanding the phenomenon of reproductive coercion and abuse and how it affects women, as well as how the mechanisms of power and control at both individual and societal levels work to perpetuate the incidence of reproductive coercion and abuse against women.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCoercionCultureFemaleHumansPsychologyQualitative ResearchReproductive BehaviorSpouse AbuseYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34932570
PMCPMC8691598
OpenAlexW4200372988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.