MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415731680 · doi:10.1186/s12978-025-02176-x

Interpersonal, community, and societal dimensions of reproductive coercion: a sequential multimethod study of victim-survivors

2025· article· en· W4415731680 on OpenAlexafffund
Sylvie Lévesque, Catherine Rousseau, Carole Boulebsol, Mylène Fernet, Simon Lapierre, Ariane Boulet, Marie‐Marthe Cousineau

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsFédération des Maisons D'Hébergement pour FemmesUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReproductive medicinePublic healthReproductive healthPopulation healthPopulationQualitative researchReproductionReproductive behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reproductive coercion (RC) is a gender-based form of violence intended to control or interfere with the reproductive autonomy of people with the capacity to become pregnant. It includes contraceptive sabotage, pregnancy pressure, and control of pregnancy outcomes. Although RC is examined mainly in intimate relationship contexts, it is not limited to them. We used an adapted critical ecological approach from a feminist perspective to explore how direct and indirect interactions between the interpersonal, community, and societal environments, all of which are shaped by cultural and social norms, can undermine contraceptive and reproductive autonomy. METHODS: We used a sequential multimethod research design that included a quantitative cross-sectional survey. In the first phase, a total of 427 individuals aged 29 years on average (M = 29.01; SD = 6.64) completed an online survey that contained quantitative measures of RC and intimate partner violence. Among the respondents, 33 provided answers to an open question to share RC experiences. In the second phase, a different convenience sample of 33 participants underwent individual qualitative interviews. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the quantitative data in SPSS 27 to determine the prevalence of each RC type. We independently coded the qualitative data from the open-ended question and individual interviews using NVivo 12. RESULTS: The findings improve the understanding of RC occurrence at different ecological levels as well as interactions between the levels. Interpersonal level. Many participants reported RC perpetuated by intimate partners or their entourage, mainly mothers-in-law and mothers. Entourage members use various strategies: psychological, spiritual, and emotional violence and control or financial extortion. In intimate relationships, the results show overlaps between intimate partner RC and violence: RC frequently occur in situations where their partner uses fear and/or control. Community level. The participants felt that healthcare workers (e.g., physicians, nurses) contributed to undermining their reproductive autonomy by withholding information about contraceptive methods, pressuring them to choose certain methods over others, or refusing to perform tubal ligations. Societal level. Reproductive autonomy is limited by the narrow choice of male contraceptive methods, overresponsibilisation of individuals who can become pregnant for the fertility control, lack of insurance coverage for certain contraceptive methods, and access barriers to reproductive services. CONCLUSION: We need to better understand the contexts in which RC occurs to respond appropriately to this social and health issue. Changes are needed across levels to create environments that facilitate and promote reproductive health and autonomy.

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 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)0.004
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 score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207