ArticleBMC health services research2025
Healthcare provider perspectives on their role in perpetrating and perpetuating reproductive coercion: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 coercion (RC) refers to behaviours that interfere with an individual's autonomy over their reproductive health and decision-making. While traditionally attributed to partners or families, emerging research has highlighted the potential role healthcare providers may play in perpetrating and perpetuating RC. This study aims to explore the perspectives of Australian healthcare providers who deliver reproductive healthcare, focusing on their understanding of provider bias and coercion in the context of reproductive decision-making, both within their own practice and among their peers.
methodsThis qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to gather insights from 18 healthcare providers, including general practitioners, nurses, and obstetricians/gynaecologists who deliver reproductive healthcare services in Australia. Participants were purposively sampled to capture a range of perspectives, selecting individuals from different healthcare roles with experience in reproductive healthcare provision. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and themes were constructed through an inductive approach.
resultsThree key themes were identified: (1) Explicit refusals and their impact on reproductive autonomy, where participants described how refusal to provide or refer for services like abortion, sterilisation or long-acting contraception undermined patients' reproductive choices; (2) Implicit bias shaping reproductive decision-making, with participants reflecting on how unconscious biases influenced contraceptive counselling and other reproductive health decisions, often leading to coercive practices; and (3) Oversight and misinformation enabling coercion, where participants noted that a lack of awareness or incorrect assumptions about patient needs could unintentionally collude with coercive dynamics.
conclusionsThis research highlights the complex ways healthcare providers may, often unintentionally, undermine reproductive autonomy through biased guidance, non-referral, or restrictive practices. Addressing both explicit and implicit provider biases is essential for fostering person-centred, non-coercive reproductive healthcare. Our findings underscore the need for healthcare systems to prioritise bias and reflective practice training, along with corresponding clinical guidance for providers. This must be supported by institutional safeguards, such as enforceable referral mechanisms and bias-aware education to ensure reproductive decisions are respected and supported in practice. By actively dismantling coercive practices, healthcare providers can ensure that the care they provide respects and upholds patients' reproductive intentions and autonomy.
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.