IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0283240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reproductive Coercion by Intimate Partners: Prevalence and Correlates in Canadian Individuals with the Capacity to be Pregnant

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvie Lévesque
  • Catherine Rousseau
  • Arianne Jean-Thorn
  • Simon Lapierre
  • Mylène Fernet
  • Marie-Marthe Cousineau

Abstract

Objectives: Despite the large body of research on violence against women, violence that specifically targets women’s reproductive autonomy and control over their reproductive health, called reproductive coercion (RC), is poorly documented in Canada. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of RC behaviors in an adult Canadian community sample and to explore associated factors. Study design: A self-report online questionnaire was administered from September 2020 to April 2021 in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited via social media, sexual and reproductive health clinics, community-based anti-violence organizations, and the project’s partner organizations. The questionnaire contained validated RC questionnaire items and new items drawn from previous qualitative work. The sample comprised 427 participants, mostly self-identified as women (92%), aged 18 to 55 years (M = 29.01; SD = 6.64). Descriptive analyses and binary logistic regressions were conducted using SPSS 27. Results: The results of this study show that 63.9% of participants reported at least one lifetime experience of RC. According to our data, contraceptive sabotage was the most common form (62.8%). Of the participants who had been pregnant, 9.8% reported control of pregnancy outcomes. Each RC category shows a different pattern of correlates. The findings also reveal that intimate partner violence (IPV) increases the likelihood of contraceptive sabotage. Moreover, the study suggests that low education level and IPV increase the risk for control of pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of RC in the lives of many Canadian individuals with the capacity to be pregnant, and they highlight certain factors that place individuals at greater risk for RC. This knowledge can inform the development of prevention efforts and clinical interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvie Lévesque & Catherine Rousseau & Arianne Jean-Thorn & Simon Lapierre & Mylène Fernet & Marie-Marthe Cousineau, 2023. "Reproductive Coercion by Intimate Partners: Prevalence and Correlates in Canadian Individuals with the Capacity to be Pregnant," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283240
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283240
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283240&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0283240?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moore, Ann M. & Frohwirth, Lori & Miller, Elizabeth, 2010. "Male reproductive control of women who have experienced intimate partner violence in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1737-1744, June.
    2. PettyJohn, Morgan E. & Reid, Taylor A. & Miller, Elizabeth & Bogen, Katherine W. & McCauley, Heather L., 2021. "Reproductive coercion, intimate partner violence, and pregnancy risk among adolescent women with a history of foster care involvement," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(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. Frohwirth, Lori & Moore, Ann M. & Maniaci, Renata, 2013. "Perceptions of susceptibility to pregnancy among U.S. women obtaining abortions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 18-26.
    2. Lauren Maxwell & Karen Devries & Danielle Zionts & Jeanne L Alhusen & Jacquelyn Campbell, 2015. "Estimating the Effect of Intimate Partner Violence on Women’s Use of Contraception: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Cortes, D & Gamboa, L. F. & Rodríguez, P, 2020. "Contraception, Intra-household Behaviour and Epidemic: Evidence from the Zika crisis in Colombia," Documentos de Trabajo 18443, Universidad del Rosario.
    4. Puri, Sunita & Adams, Vincanne & Ivey, Susan & Nachtigall, Robert D., 2011. ""There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons": A qualitative study of son preference and fetal sex selection among Indian immigrants in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1169-1176, April.
    5. Boggiano, Bárbara, 2024. "Long-term effects of the Paraguayan War (1864-1870) on intimate partner violence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 177-224.
    6. Palmer, Jennifer J. & Storeng, Katerini T., 2016. "Building the nation's body: The contested role of abortion and family planning in post-war South Sudan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 84-92.
    7. Rosie L Latimer & Lenka A Vodstrcil & Christopher K Fairley & Vincent J Cornelisse & Eric P F Chow & Tim R H Read & Catriona S Bradshaw, 2018. "Non-consensual condom removal, reported by patients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Steinberg, Julia R. & Tschann, Jeanne M. & Furgerson, Dorothy & Harper, Cynthia C., 2016. "Psychosocial factors and pre-abortion psychological health: The significance of stigma," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 67-75.

    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:plo:pone00:0283240. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.