IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v290y2021ics0277953621006080.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women's (limited) agency over their sexual bodies: Contesting contraceptive recommendations in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Ostermann, Ana Cristina

Abstract

Unintended pregnancies constitute a serious public health concern in Brazil, representing up to 55% of all pregnancies, and are prevalent among women with low income and low educational backgrounds. Lack of assistance to women in their decision-making has hindered the adoption of more effective contraceptive models. Although clinical consultations constitute an important locus to assist women in decision-making and to facilitate access to subsidized methods, our current knowledge of how contraception is discussed and decisions are reached in actual consultations is limited. Just as scarce is our knowledge of how patients respond and resist contraception recommendations and how physicians counter or accommodate patients. Using a corpus of 103 audio-recorded medical visits and conversation analytic (CA) methods, this paper examines recommendation sequences in the under-investigated gynecological consultations in the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). The quantitative analysis reveals a strong orientation to physicians as having primary rights to govern the oversight of women's bodies: 94% of the recommendations are delivered as pronouncements (e.g., “You'll take X″), the most authoritative action type. Patients largely assume an agreeable and passive role (66%), leading to scarce negotiation and minimal involvement in decision-making. However, in a few cases (12%), all involving contraception, patients become overtly agentive, responding with active resistance. A qualitative analysis of that subset shows that despite women's gaining some agency over their sexual bodies, that agency is still limited. Whereas physicians accommodate patient resistance on grounds of biomedically-related side-effects and incorrect assumptions about the women's lives, they overlook patient resistance based on gendered struggles over contraceptive methods in the domestic sphere. By failing to consider women's lack of agency in choosing whether to have sex or to use condoms, doctors show unawareness of significant consequences of the recommended method, which might include domestic dispute and violence and, paradoxically, ultimately misfire, leading to unwanted pregnancy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ostermann, Ana Cristina, 2021. "Women's (limited) agency over their sexual bodies: Contesting contraceptive recommendations in Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:290:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621006080
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621006080
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114276?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koenig, Christopher J., 2011. "Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1105-1114, April.
    2. Telma Maria Menicucci, 2019. "The Brazilian Unified Health System: Thirty Years of Advances and Resistance," Chapters, in: Aida Isabel Tavares (ed.), Universal Health Coverage, IntechOpen.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    2. Heritage, John & McArthur, Amanda, 2019. "The diagnostic moment: A study in US primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 262-271.
    3. Murdoch, Jamie & Salter, Charlotte & Ford, John & Lenaghan, Elizabeth & Shiner, Alice & Steel, Nicholas, 2020. "The “unknown territory” of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    4. Stewart, Simon John & Roberts, Lisa & Brindle, Lucy, 2023. "Shared decision-making during prostate cancer consultations: Implications of clinician misalignment with patient and partner preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    5. Bernardi, Roberta & Wu, Philip F., 2022. "Online health communities and the patient-doctor relationship: An institutional logics perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    6. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    7. Zhao, Chunjuan & Ma, Wen, 2020. "Patient resistance towards clinicians’ diagnostic test-taking advice and its management in Chinese outpatient clinic interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    8. Schweda, Mark & Pfaller, Larissa, 2014. "Colonization of later life? Laypersons' and users' agency regarding anti-aging medicine in Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 159-165.
    9. Toerien, Merran, 2021. "When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    10. Zhou, Amy, 2016. "The uncertainty of treatment: Women's use of HIV treatment as prevention in Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 52-60.
    11. Gross, Christiane & Schübel, Thomas & Hoffmann, Rasmus, 2015. "Picking up the pieces—Applying the DISEASE FILTER to health data," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 549-557.
    12. Chappell, Paul & Toerien, Merran & Jackson, Clare & Reuber, Markus, 2018. "Following the patient's orders? Recommending vs. offering choice in neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 8-16.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:290:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621006080. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.