ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2026
"It should have been my decision": A mixed methods investigation of contraceptive coercion among U.S. patients with and without disabilities.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with disabilities have long faced threats to their bodily autonomy and reproductive decision-making. One such threat, provider-based contraceptive coercion, occurs when healthcare providers pressure patients to use (upward coercion) or not use (downward coercion) birth control. Yet, modern experiences of contraceptive coercion among people with disabilities remain underexplored.
methodsIn 2023, we surveyed U.S. reproductive-aged people assigned female at birth using Prolific, a national panel of vetted respondents. Participants reported their disability status and contraceptive care experiences. We examined differences in contraceptive coercion by disability status and tested whether self-reported discrimination in contraceptive care mediated this relationship. We also used reflexive thematic analysis to explore contraceptive coercion among people with disabilities.
resultsIn our analytic sample (N = 1150), people with disabilities were significantly more likely than those without to report ever experiencing any contraceptive coercion (49.4% vs. 38.9%), including upward coercion (40.1% vs. 31.1%) and downward coercion (23.3% vs. 13.2%). These disparities persisted after adjusting for sociodemographic controls. Self-reported discrimination in contraceptive care mediated the relationship between disability status and contraceptive coercion. Open-ended analysis revealed the complex ways that contraceptive coercion is intertwined with disability status, often involving discriminatory, dismissive, and contradictory contraceptive counseling.
conclusionsContraceptive coercion is more common among individuals with disabilities and is explained by self-reported discriminatory care. Understanding these experiences is key to resisting coercive practices and advancing disability-informed reproductive justice.
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.