ArticleReproductive health2026
Experiences of discrimination in reproductive healthcare: a psychometric evaluation of a discrimination measure for family planning settings.
Article in Reproductive health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExperiences of discrimination in healthcare settings contribute to inequities in healthcare access and outcomes. Black, Latina, and Indigenous communities have lower levels of trust in reproductive healthcare due to a longstanding history of abuses. In this context, discriminatory behaviors by providers may be particularly problematic. This study aimed to test the psychometric properties of a nine-item measure of lifetime experiences of discrimination in family planning settings developed by Thorburn Bird and Bogart (2003).
methodsData came from the nationally representative Person-Centered Contraceptive Access Metrics Survey (unweighted N = 3,059). We performed exploratory factor analysis using principal axis extraction and Promax rotation, assessed reliability using coefficient omega, and employed weighted linear regression to test known-groups validity.
resultsWe identified two factors and retained seven scale items. The two factors, general healthcare discrimination and stereotype-based discrimination, were consistent with the scale’s original 2005 validation with African American women. The measure demonstrated strong reliability (coefficient omega 0.97) and goodness-of-fit (TLI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.066). Known-groups validity testing indicated that people of color experienced higher levels of discrimination in family planning settings compared to white respondents.
conclusionsThis updated validation with a nationally representative sample confirms the scale’s utility for assessing discrimination in family planning settings and identifying the relationship with healthcare outcomes. The measure provides a tool to support research on the prevalence of discrimination and its impact on reproductive autonomy, including preferred method use and access to care. The scale may aid the assessment of clinic procedures and interventions promoting equitable access to high-quality reproductive healthcare.
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.