IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v21y2024i6p750-d1411325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Healthcare Provider-Based Contraceptive Coercion: Understanding U.S. Patient Experiences and Describing Implications for Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Laura E. T. Swan

    (Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706, WI, USA)

  • Lindsay M. Cannon

    (Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706, WI, USA)

Abstract

Despite growing concerns over coercion in contraceptive care, few studies have described its frequency and manifestations. Further, there is no established quantitative method of measuring this construct. We begin to fill this gap by detailing nuance in contraceptive coercion experiences and testing a novel measure: the Coercion in Contraceptive Care Checklist. In early 2023, we surveyed reproductive-aged people in the United States who were assigned female at birth about their contraceptive care. We describe the frequency of contraceptive coercion in our sample ( N = 1197) and use open-ended descriptions to demonstrate nuances in these experiences. Finally, we debut our checklist and present psychometric testing results. Among people who had ever talked to a healthcare provider about contraception, over one in six participants (18.46%) reported experiencing coercion during their last contraceptive counseling, and over one in three (42.27%) reported it at some point in their lifetime. Being made to use or keep using birth control pills was the most common form of coercion reported by patients (14.62% lifetime frequency). Factor analysis supported the two-factor dimensionality of the Coercion in Contraceptive Care Checklist. Inter-item correlations were statistically significant ( p < 0.001), providing evidence of reliability. The checklist was also related to measures of quality in family planning care (downward coercion: t [1194] = 7.54, p < 0.001; upward coercion: t [1194] = 14.76, p < 0.001) and discrimination in healthcare (downward coercion: t [1160] = −14.77, p < 0.001; upward coercion: t [1160] = −18.27, p < 0.001), providing evidence of construct validity. Findings provide critical information about the frequency and manifestations of contraceptive coercion. Psychometric tests reveal evidence of the Coercion in Contraceptive Care Checklist’s validity, reliability, and dimensionality while also suggesting avenues for future testing and refinement.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:6:p:750-:d:1411325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/6/750/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/6/750/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura E. T. Swan & Samantha L. Auerbach & Gretchen E. Ely & Kafuli Agbemenu & Jessica Mencia & Nimah R. Araf, 2020. "Family Planning Practices in Appalachia: Focus Group Perspectives on Service Needs in the Context of Regional Substance Abuse," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-25, February.
    2. Senderowicz, Leigh, 2019. "“I was obligated to accept”: A qualitative exploration of contraceptive coercion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    3. Higgins, J.A. & Kramer, R.D. & Ryder, K.M., 2016. "Provider bias in long-Acting reversible contraception (LARC) promotion and removal: Perceptions of young adult women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(11), pages 1932-1937.
    4. Geampana, Alina, 2016. "Pregnancy is more dangerous than the pill: A critical analysis of professional responses to the Yaz/Yasmin controversy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 9-16.
    5. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    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. Donnelly, Katie, 2024. "Patient-centered or population-centered? How epistemic discrepancies cause harm and sow mistrust," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 341(C).
    2. Samantha Auerbach & Kafuli Agbemenu & Rebecca Lorenz & Amy Hequembourg & Gretchen E. Ely, 2023. "Contraceptive Behavior in Appalachia: Exploring Use, Nonuse, and Contraceptive Attitudes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(19), pages 1-10, September.
    3. Ni, Dan & Jiwen Song, Lynda & Zheng, Xiaoming & Zhu, Jinlong & Zhang, Mengyi & Xu, Lingxiao, 2022. "Extending a helping hand: How receiving gratitude makes a difference in employee performance during a crisis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 967-982.
    4. Julie Bayle-Cordier & Loïc Berger & Rayan Elatmani & Massimo Tavoni, 2023. "Breath, Love, Walk? The Impact of Mindfulness Interventions on Climate Policy Support and Environmental Attitudes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-29, July.
    5. Jennifer Manlove & Brooke Whitfield & Jane Finocharo & Elizabeth Cook, 2021. "Lessons Learned from Replicating a Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of an App-Based Sexual Health Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Eva Wanek & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Alda Mari, 2024. "Desire, moral evaluation or sense of duty: The modal framing of stated preference elicitation," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(4), pages 434-459, August.
    7. Calvin Thigpen & Kelcie Ralph & Nicholas J. Klein & Anne Brown, 2023. "Can information increase support for transportation reform? Results from an experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 893-912, June.
    8. Can, Ali Selcuk & Ekinci, Yuksel & Pino, Giovanni, 2021. "Joint brand advertising for emerging heritage sites," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    9. Billur Aksoy & Christopher S. Carpenter & Dario Sansone, 2025. "Understanding Labor Market Discrimination Against Transgender People: Evidence from a Double List Experiment and a Survey," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(1), pages 659-677, January.
    10. Annika Hillebrandt & Daniel L. Brady & Maria Francisca Saldanha & Laurie J. Barclay, 2023. "The Paradox of Paranoia: How One’s Own Self-Interested Unethical Behavior Can Spark Paranoia and Reduce Affiliative Behavior Toward Coworkers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 159-173, April.
    11. Feess, Eberhard & Schilling, Thomas & Timofeyev, Yuriy, 2023. "Misreporting in teams with individual decision making: The impact of information and communication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 509-532.
    12. Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Heinrich, Tobias & Bryant, Kristin A., 2021. "Public support for development aid during the COVID-19 pandemic," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    13. Hensel, Lukas & Witte, Marc & Caria, A. Stefano & Fetzer, Thiemo & Fiorin, Stefano & Götz, Friedrich M. & Gomez, Margarita & Haushofer, Johannes & Ivchenko, Andriy & Kraft-Todd, Gordon & Reutskaja, El, 2022. "Global Behaviors, Perceptions, and the Emergence of Social Norms at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 473-496.
    14. Marco Catola & Simone D'Alessandro & Pietro Guarnieri & Veronica Pizziol, 2020. "Multilevel Public Goods Game: an Online Experiment," Discussion Papers 2020/263, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Irmela Fritzi Koch-Bayram & Torsten Biemann, 2024. "How Corporate Social (Ir)Responsibility Influences Employees’ Private Prosocial Behavior: An Experimental Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 194(1), pages 103-118, September.
    16. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Donavon Johnson & Alexander Kroll, 2021. "What makes us tolerant of administrative burden? Race, representation, and identity," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 4(1).
    19. Marzi, Giacomo & Fakhar Manesh, Mohammad & Caputo, Andrea & Pellegrini, Massimiliano Matteo & Vlačić, Božidar, 2023. "Do or do not. Cognitive configurations affecting open innovation adoption in SMEs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    20. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen, 2020. "Bad bankers no more? Truth-telling and (dis)honesty in the finance industry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 472-493.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:6:p:750-:d:1411325. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.