ArticleReproductive health2025
Women and health workers' conceptualisations of reproductive coercion and abuse: a comparative synthesis from Brazil, Nepal, Palestine, and Sri Lanka.
Article in Reproductive health, 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
Abstract
backgroundReproductive coercion and abuse (RCA) is a hidden form of violence against women, involving controlling behaviours by a partner or family member to manipulate a woman's reproductive autonomy, either to prevent or promote pregnancy. It correlates with partner violence, unintended pregnancy, contraceptive non-adherence, and poor sexual and reproductive health. However, research often oversimplifies RCA, treating it as a uniform phenomenon and neglecting its diverse manifestations. Additionally, there is scarce evidence on RCA in low- and middle-income countries. This study examines the conceptualisation and discourse surrounding reproductive coercion among health workers and women victims/survivors in Brazil, Nepal, occupied Palestinian Territories, and Sri Lanka. The main objectives include: 1) Investigating acts of reproductive coercion reported by women and health workers. 2) Exploring how health workers approach reproductive coercion in their practice. 3) Understanding the structural, institutional, and social barriers affecting victim/survivors encounters with reproductive coercion.
methodsWe conducted 62 qualitative interviews with health workers and domestic violence victims/survivors across the four countries, plus three focus groups with women in Nepal. Data were analysed thematically.
resultsThe findings reveal that reproductive coercion emerged as a form of domestic violence across all settings studied. Reported acts of coercion and violence by both women and health workers included attempts to force pregnancy against a woman's wishes and to hinder contraceptive use, driven by jealousy or the desire to promote pregnancy. Perpetrators, mainly husbands and family members (particularly in-laws in Nepal and Sri Lanka), employed various coercive behaviours such as pressure, decision-making control, threats (e.g., leaving the partner or violence), verbal harassment, and physical violence. The analysis also underscored broader structural and social challenges constraining women's reproductive choices and health workers' responses, encompassing religious beliefs surrounding contraception and abortion, cultural norms regarding son preference (notably in Nepal), and restrictive health policies concerning abortion and spousal consent for family planning (observed in Nepal and Sri Lanka).
conclusionsThe study emphasises the necessity for further research to comprehensively understand acts of reproductive coercion and abuse and guide health workers in effectively addressing this issue.
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.