MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410932366 · doi:10.1080/19317611.2025.2508495

Typology, Risk, and Protective Factors of Reproductive Coercion: A Narrative Literature Review of Studies from the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe

2025· article· en· W4410932366 on OpenAlex
Charline Equeter, Stephan Van den Broucke, Françoise Adam

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sexual Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyNarrativeCoercion (linguistics)Sexual coercionCriminologyGender studiesHistoryGeographyPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyMedicineEnvironmental healthAnthropologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Reproductive coercion refers to attempts to control reproductive choices, often exerted by an intimate partner or a family member. Introduced by Miller et al. (2010), this concept highlights the link between reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancies, as well as its impact on sexual and reproductive autonomy. Although frequently associated with intimate partner violence, some research emphasizes its occurrence outside of this context. Objectives: Reproductive coercion, defined as acts that directly interfere with contraception and compromise women's reproductive autonomy, was first formally described in 2010. Since then, numerous studies have examined its prevalence, forms, and consequences for reproductive health, primarily it to intimate partner violence and domestic violence. This study aims to update the current understanding of CR, including its occurrence beyond the context of intimate partner violence. Method: A strategic literature search was conducted using ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Scopus and PubMed to identify published articles that used reproductive coercion and related terms as keywords. A total of 68 articles met the inclusion criteria, addressing the prevalence, forms, contexts, risk factors, and existing intervention strategies related to reproductive coercion. Results: The findings reveal that while reproductive coercion often occurs within intimate partner relationships, it can also involve family members or structural factors. Common tactics include contraception sabotage, pressure to pursue unwanted pregnancies, and coercion in pregnancy-related decision-making, often accompanied by violence or psychological manipulation. Prevalence rates vary widely and are often imprecise, with higher rates observed in the presence of intimate partner violence. Identified risk factors include gender inequality, socio-economic disadvantage, and minority status. However, protective factors remain underexplored. Current prevention strategies focus on healthcare-based screening and public awareness campaigns, although their effectiveness remains limited. Conclusions: This review highlights the need for further research into reproductive coercion across diverse populations, the role of perpetrators, and cases occurring outside of intimate partner violence contexts, to better inform prevention and intervention efforts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it