Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38516063›Full record

ArticleViolence and gender2024

Reproductive Coercion and Abuse: The Potential Protective Scope of Existing Family Violence Legislation in Australia.

Stephanie Komazec, Clare Farmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Violence and gender, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Stephanie KomazecSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9994-7904
Clare FarmerSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2905-2173

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproductive coercion and abuse (RCA) removes or reduces reproductive autonomy and decision-making. RCA-focused research is mostly situated within a health care perspective, with much less focus on sociolegal or criminological considerations. This article reports a summary of findings from an examination of existing Australian family violence legislation to discern whether these provisions could facilitate improved responses to RCA. The study analyzed whether and how RCA is reflected within legislative definitions of family violence across Australia, to determine their potential protective scope. The state of South Australia is the only jurisdiction to provide explicit reference to behaviors regarded as RCA, but many definitions within the family violence legislation in other jurisdictions implicitly cover RCA. While such implicit coverage may hinder the recognition of RCA as a form of family violence, it may also provide sufficient flexibility to enable RCA to be addressed through the legal application of current family violence policy and legislation-with consequential potential benefits for the identification and support of victim-survivors.

Indexed as

family violencefamily violence legislationintimate partner violencereproductive coercionreproductive coercion and abuse

Identifiers

PMID38516063
PMCPMC10951439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.