| Description |
Reproductive coercion (RC) is a phenomenon defined as interference with a woman's ability to make autonomous decisions surrounding their reproductive or sexual health goals. Acts involving RC can occur on a temporal continuum ranging from before, during, and after intercourse. These actions encompass coercion, physical violence, and hidden methods of birth control sabotage (such as poking holes in condoms). The purpose of this pilot study is to provide insight into how key-stakeholders define RC, their perceptions regarding RC, and what services are provided in the form of prevention and intervention methods. Key-stakeholders for this study are defined as private and public informants. Private informants consist of healthcare practitioners and domestic violence/crisis workers. Public informants for this study have been identified as advocates in public policy for sexual and reproductive health. Qualitative semistructured in-depth interviews were held with 12 key-stakeholders to explore further informants' viewpoints surrounding their perceptions and definitions of RC. Interviews allowed the informants to express workplace policies, their level of awareness of RC, and how they perceived community perceptions of individuals sexual and reproductive health needs. Interviews were coded to de-identify participants, transcribed, and qualitative descriptive analysis was used to determine emergent themes and trends throughout interviews to draw to light the nuances of RC. Seven themes emerged from the data collected from 13 interviews. iv The results indicate that the majority of informants perceive RC to be a form of abuse that can range from financial coercion to physical violence that impacts an individual's autonomous reproductive and sexual health goals. While informant's share a common definition of how they defined RC, they did not recognize the language used from the research (i.e., birth control sabotage, pregnancy promotion, stealthing). Prevention and intervention methods described by private informants ranged from intake screenings for patients to counseling and outside service referrals. Barriers towards intervention methods for RC highlighted the following: i) a lack of time and funding to give in-depth care to patients who are seeking reproductive and sexual healthcare; ii) lack of knowledge among the community; iii) common myths and expectations about individual sexual and reproductive choices; iv) and community perceptions. This research highlights a greater need to address autonomous choices towards an individual's reproductive and sexual health goals within their intimate partnerships. Further exploration should address community perceptions regarding the phenomenon of RC and healthy sexual and reproductive health. Funding and educational opportunities to provide prevention methods for RC should be addressed within public policy. |
