IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v385y2025ics0277953625009591.html

Australian health and social service providers’ perspectives on interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion

Author

Listed:
  • Saldanha, Susan
  • Botfield, Jessica R.
  • Moradi, Maryam
  • Wong, Jeana
  • Mazza, Danielle

Abstract

This study explored how Australian health and social service providers describe both interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion (RC), and how they perceive these forms to interact in practice from their experiences supporting RC victim-survivors. Guided by an adapted socio-ecological framework that helped distinguish interpersonal and structural RC, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 general practitioners, nurses, social workers, domestic violence workers, and obstetrician/gynaecologists. Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) Conflict and control: being powered by fear, demonstrates how interpersonal coercion emerges when reproductive conflict is coupled with fear and power imbalances, prompting concealment or compliance; (2) The path of ‘shoulds’, captures how explicit and implicit coercion arise from layered interpersonal and structural pressures, including cultural, societal and institutional norms that dictate who should or should not bear a child, with structural conditions often enabling interpersonal control; and (3) Unspoken, unenforced, yet deeply understood pressure, describes tacit coercion, internalised pressures often rooted in cultural and societal expectations that prompt individuals to self-regulate their reproductive choices or make protective decisions within constrained circumstances. Across the three themes, RC was understood as a relational and socially embedded phenomenon, where true freedom from coercion in reproductive decision-making depends not only on the absence of direct interference but also on having the space and supportive structures to make choices freely, safely, and in alignment with one's own values. Future research must centre victim-survivor experiences to deepen this conceptualisation and explore how interpersonal and structural forms of RC intersect in lived realities.

Suggested Citation

  • Saldanha, Susan & Botfield, Jessica R. & Moradi, Maryam & Wong, Jeana & Mazza, Danielle, 2025. "Australian health and social service providers’ perspectives on interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 385(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:385:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625009591
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625009591
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118628?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Senderowicz, Leigh, 2019. "“I was obligated to accept”: A qualitative exploration of contraceptive coercion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    2. McConnell, David & Phelan, Shanon, 2022. "The devolution of eugenic practices: Sexual and reproductive health and oppression of people with intellectual disability," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    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. Moussa Lonkila Zan & Claudine Sauvain-Dugerdil & Clémentine Rossier, 2024. "Using Modern Contraception While Wanting a Child: What Does Contraceptive Over-Use Mean for the Human Rights-Based Approach in Burkina Faso? Insights from PMA2020 Data," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Hanna Björg Sigurjónsdóttir & James Gordon Rice, 2025. "Can Systematic Justice Be Achieved for Parents with Intellectual Disabilities in Deprivation of Custody Cases?," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Donnelly, Katie, 2024. "Patient-centered or population-centered? How epistemic discrepancies cause harm and sow mistrust," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 341(C).
    4. Brooke W. Bullington & Katherine Tumlinson & Nathalie Sawadogo & Claire W. Rothschild & Leigh Senderowicz, 2025. "Measuring Informed Choice for Contraception in Burkina Faso: Comparing Self-Rated and Researcher-Ascribed Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 179(2), pages 1119-1141, September.
    5. Tommie Forslund & Lene Lindberg & Pehr Granqvist, 2022. "Behavior Problems among Children of Mothers with Mild Intellectual Disability: The Role of Maternal Sensitivity, Trauma History, and Intelligence," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-13, August.
    6. Laura E. T. Swan & Lindsay M. Cannon, 2024. "Healthcare Provider-Based Contraceptive Coercion: Understanding U.S. Patient Experiences and Describing Implications for Measurement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(6), pages 1-14, June.
    7. Leigh Senderowicz & Nicole Maloney, 2022. "Supply‐Side Versus Demand‐Side Unmet Need: Implications for Family Planning Programs," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(3), pages 689-722, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:385:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625009591. 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.