ArticleBMJ sexual & reproductive health2023
Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Reproductive Autonomy Scale for use in the UK.
Article in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abortion knowledge, attitudes and reproductive autonomy among university students in Austria: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Women Autonomy Scale for measuring psychosocial freedom from conventional gender roles.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Frequency and Risk Factors of Reproductive Coercion Among Pregnant Individuals: A Cross-Sectional Study.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- The Reproductive Autonomy Scale: German validation and application in an Austrian student population.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReproductive autonomy-control over outcomes including contraceptive use and childbearing-is a human right and vital to women's empowerment. Those whose reproductive autonomy is threatened by the structures and relationships in their lives are at risk of coercion and unplanned pregnancy and could benefit from additional services. The Reproductive Autonomy Scale (RAS) was developed in the USA to assess women's reproductive autonomy; this study evaluates the RAS for use in the UK.
methodsAfter testing, the RAS was incorporated into an online survey of women of reproductive age. Those who were sexually active were asked to complete the RAS, which was evaluated according to classical test theory. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency and a 3-month test-retest. Construct validity was assessed using hypothesis testing and confirmatory factor analysis.
resultsFor 826 women the RAS was highly acceptable, with a response rate of >97.7%. Almost the whole range of reproductive autonomy scores were captured. Internal consistency was good, with a Cronbach's α of 0.75. Test-retest reliability was fair-good with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.67. Construct validity analysis found the scale to be valid based on our hypothesis that among women who want to avoid pregnancy, those with higher reproductive autonomy will be more likely to use contraception. The three-factor structure of the scale was confirmed on confirmatory factor analysis.
conclusionThe RAS is valid and reliable for use in the UK. This tool holds potential utility across research, clinical practice, health interventions and policy development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.