Investigating Reproductive Coercion and Violence Towards Women with Disabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
4 Executive summary Background: the issue For centuries, women with disabilities (WWD) have been subject to multiple and intersecting forms of violence (Abbas, 2022). Much of the literature has focused on intimate partner violence towards WWD (i.e. Campbell et al., 2022; Meyer et al., 2022). Reproductive violence towards WWD has received less attention, despite the long history of reproductive injustice within Canadian and international contexts. This particular form of violence towards WWD is a violation of human rights and has multiple and pervasive impacts on social, emotional, and physical health (Björnsdóttir et al., 2017; Grace & Anderson, 2018; McConnell & Phelan, 2022; Powell, 2021). The Senate of Canada Committee on Human Rights (2022), recently published a report indicating the prevalence of reproductive coercion on intersecting and marginalized communities, calling to action the government and health and social service sectors. Despite the recognition of the issues and rights of WWD within their reproductive journey, there is scant literature in the field. Objectives The objective of this project was to conduct a scoping review investigating and synthesizing the research literature related to reproductive violence against WWD within Canadian and international contexts. Results Following a rigorous research strategy, 48 publications were included in this scoping review. Although heterogeneous, this review provides an overview of the meaning and types of reproductive violence towards WWD. The results of this scoping review are centered on legal analysis and most of the publications are related to women with intellectual disabilities. Within the legal disciplines, questions related to the ‘best interests’ of WWD and informed consent were widely examined in the selected international publications. Key messages • Stereotypes within society, such as WWD being identified as asexual, dependent, and unfit for motherhood prevail. Within the legal studies, it was evidenced that these ideologies underpinned many decisions that were taken in court applications for sterilization. • WWD lack access to information and services related to sexual and reproductive health and rights. 5 • WWD are often coerced into long-term and/or irreversible contraception methods. • Managing menstrual issues is one of the main arguments in the application of sterilization towards WWD. The other important issues are related to protecting against sexual abuse and preventing unexpected pregnancies. • There is a gap in research-knowledge related to sterilization that occurs outside institutions. • There is a need for more empirical studies related to reproductive violence including the exploration of the experiences of WWD. Methods (search methods, selection criteria, data collection and analysis) In this project, we conducted a scoping review, following the six steps recommended by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) in their framework for conducting scoping reviews (updated by Levac et al., 2010). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were related to gender (had to be oriented towards women), disabilities (had to be disability focused) and reproductive violence (had to refer specifically to reproductive violence). We excluded all publications related to HIV/AIDS and mental health issues. Another important exclusion criterion was related to the accessibility of the publication.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».