ArticleSexual and reproductive health matters2025
Strategies to address reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence in Nairobi family planning services: qualitative client and provider perspectives.
Article in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproductive coercion (RC) and intimate partner violence (IPV) threaten women's health and reproductive agency globally. The Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings (ARCHES) intervention integrates screening for RC and IPV, covert contraceptive options, IPV referrals, and an educational booklet into family planning (FP) services. This study examines client and provider perspectives on ARCHES in Nairobi, Kenya. A qualitative study was conducted in the three private clinics implementing ARCHES. Data were collected through 35 in-depth client interviews and 12 provider interviews three months post-intervention. Participants were purposively sampled based on age and RC/IPV experience. Thematic content analysis was used. Clients reported greater reproductive autonomy through increased knowledge of covert contraception, IPV services, and reproductive rights. Providers reported gaining confidence to address RC and IPV and building stronger relationships with clients. Barriers included stigma around IPV referrals and limited counselling time. Screening for RC/IPV was widely accepted, with some clients recognising abuse for the first time. The compact educational booklet improved knowledge retention and community outreach. Perspectives on male partner engagement were mixed due to concerns about safety and confidentiality. ARCHES was well-received by clients and providers, enhancing FP care and addressing critical gaps in RC and IPV support. Future adaptations should address barriers to IPV referral uptake and provider first-line IPV support, and carefully track implementation to ensure continued client-centred counselling. These findings support ARCHES as a scalable model for integrating FP and violence prevention interventions in Kenya and similar contexts.
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.