Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37205617›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic nursing

Reproductive Coercion Among Women With Disabilities: An Analysis of Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring Systems Data.

Vanessa Amos, Genevieve R Lyons, Kathryn Laughon, Rosemary B Hughes, Jeanne L Alhusen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Pregnancy Decision-Making Among Women With Physical Disabilities: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Disability-Related Disparities in Screening for Intimate Partner Violence During the Perinatal Period: A Population-Based Study.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vanessa AmosAuthor Affiliations: University of Virginia School of Nursing.
Genevieve R LyonsUniversity of Virginia Public Health Sciences.
Kathryn LaughonAuthor Affiliations: University of Virginia School of Nursing.
Rosemary B HughesUniversity of Montana Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities.
Jeanne L AlhusenAuthor Affiliations: University of Virginia School of Nursing.
University of Virginia · USInstitute for Rural Engineering · JP

Funding

Psychosocial stress and its relation to maternal and infant outcomes among women with disabilitiesR01HD102927 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI ALHUSEN, JEANNE L · 2021 to 2025
$2.3M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD102927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsReproductive coercion (RC) is a widespread yet understudied type of intimate partner violence that is associated with numerous negative outcomes. Women with disabilities may be at an increased risk of RC; however, little research has been conducted among this population. Using population-based data, we sought to examine the prevalence of RC in postpartum women with disabilities.

methodsThis is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey, the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a nationally representative survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in partnership with participating states. These analyses include 3,117 respondents who had information on both disability status and experiences of RC.

resultsApproximately 1.9% of respondents reported experiencing RC (95% CI [1.3, 2.4]). When stratified by disability status, approximately 1.7% of respondents without a disability reported RC whereas 6.2% of respondents with at least one disability reported RC ( p < 0.001). In univariable logistic models, disability, age, education, relationship status, income, and race were all significantly associated with RC.

conclusionsOur findings highlight the need for healthcare providers working with women with disabilities to screen for RC and potentially uncover intimate partner violence and prevent its negative health consequences. All states participating in Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System data collection are urged to incorporate measures of RC and disability status to better address this significant issue.

Indexed as

Intimate Partner ViolencePersons with DisabilitiesCoercionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancyRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID37205617
PMCPMC10220289
OpenAlexW4318930191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.