Reproductive Coercion by Intimate Partners: Prevalence and Correlates in Canadian Individuals with the Capacity to be Pregnant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the large body of research on violence against women, violence that specifically targets women's reproductive autonomy and control over their reproductive health, called reproductive coercion (RC), is poorly documented in Canada. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of RC behaviors in an adult Canadian community sample and to explore associated factors. STUDY DESIGN: A self-report online questionnaire was administered from September 2020 to April 2021 in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited via social media, sexual and reproductive health clinics, community-based anti-violence organizations, and the project's partner organizations. The questionnaire contained validated RC questionnaire items and new items drawn from previous qualitative work. The sample comprised 427 participants, mostly self-identified as women (92%), aged 18 to 55 years (M = 29.01; SD = 6.64). Descriptive analyses and binary logistic regressions were conducted using SPSS 27. RESULTS: The results of this study show that 63.9% of participants reported at least one lifetime experience of RC. According to our data, contraceptive sabotage was the most common form (62.8%). Of the participants who had been pregnant, 9.8% reported control of pregnancy outcomes. Each RC category shows a different pattern of correlates. The findings also reveal that intimate partner violence (IPV) increases the likelihood of contraceptive sabotage. Moreover, the study suggests that low education level and IPV increase the risk for control of pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of RC in the lives of many Canadian individuals with the capacity to be pregnant, and they highlight certain factors that place individuals at greater risk for RC. This knowledge can inform the development of prevention efforts and clinical interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".