Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Reproductive coercion (RC) broadly encompasses behaviors that interfere with a person’s reproductive choices, including control over contraception, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, and can pose considerable health risks. However, its full impact on health remains insufficiently understood. This scoping review systematically examined empirical literature on the health consequences of RC published between 2010 and 2024. Following JBI methodology and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we searched five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus) for peer-reviewed studies reporting on RC and associated health outcomes. Sixty-two studies across 18 countries met inclusion criteria, the majority from high-income settings, revealing adverse effects on reproductive, sexual, and mental health. Most studies focused on pregnancy coercion and contraceptive sabotage perpetrated by male partners. RC was consistently associated with adverse mental health outcomes, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. Studies associated RC with an increased risk of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Contraceptive use patterns varied: some studies reported reduced uptake among those experiencing RC, while others described increased use of covert long-acting methods and emergency contraception as protective strategies. Few studies examined physical health outcomes or healthcare utilization following RC. Evidence gaps remain regarding the health consequences of other RC behaviors, including coerced continuation or termination of pregnancy and forced contraception, as well as from low- and middle-income contexts. Clarifying the health consequences linked to current or past experiences of different RC behaviors may support healthcare providers in recognizing and responding to RC, to promote reproductive autonomy and improve health outcomes for RC victim-survivors.

Keywords

reproductive coercion contraceptive sabotage pregnancy coercion coerced abortion forced contraception reproductive violence health consequences

Background

Reproductive coercion (RC), situated at the nexus of gender-based violence and sexual and reproductive health (SRH), is a form of abuse that interferes with autonomous reproductive decision-making and negatively impacts overall health and well-being (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021). It involves behaviors that restrict or control a person’s reproductive choices, often enacted by intimate partners or family members (Rowlands & Walker, 2019). These behaviors may include pressuring someone to become pregnant, interfering with contraception, or coercing them into continuing or ending a pregnancy. Researchers have commonly examined RC in the context of male intimate partners who use pressure and coercion tactics to cause pregnancy, including sabotaging contraception (Miller et al., 2010). Tarzia & Hegarty (2021) refer to such interpersonal forms of RC as reproductive coercion and abuse.

While most scholarship has conceptualized RC as an interpersonal issue, there has long been discussion about whether it should be understood more broadly to include structural dimensions like policies and practices enacted by institutions and systems that impact reproductive autonomy (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Grace & Fleming, 2016; Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021). More recently, researchers and organizations have explicitly applied RC terminology to structural determinants such as racism, restrictive abortion legislation, and health system policies (Coleman et al., 2023; Graham et al., 2023; Marie Stopes Australia, 2020; Warling et al., 2023), framing these practices within a broader definition of reproductive violence (Laverty & de Vos, 2021). In this review, we adopt an inclusive definition of RC that acknowledges both its interpersonal and structural forms, but recognize them as distinct yet interconnected domains. We consider structural forms of RC where policies, practices, or institutional actions were explicitly described in the evidence by researchers as coercively shaping a person’s reproductive choices, rather than as broader impacts on reproductive autonomy (Upadhyay et al., 2014).

A substantial body of evidence shows that people who experience violence face a significantly higher risk of unintended pregnancies and adverse reproductive health outcomes (Coker, 2007; Moore et al., 2010). Perpetrators of violence often use pregnancy as a means of control (Bacchus et al., 2006), and researchers widely recognize RC as a major contributor to unintended pregnancies (Grace & Anderson, 2018). RC frequently co-occurs with intimate partner violence (IPV) and can lead to long-term adverse physical, mental, sexual, and reproductive health consequences (Grace & Miller, 2023; McCauley et al., 2014; Northridge et al., 2017). However, the diverse ways in which RC manifests across populations, and hidden dynamics within relationships, can obscure its health impacts, making it difficult for healthcare providers to identify and support those affected (Wellington et al., 2021).

Researchers have found that individuals experiencing IPV often access healthcare services more frequently than those who do not, seeking care for injuries and other health-related concerns (Campbell, 2002; Potter et al., 2021). Similarly, individuals experiencing RC are more likely to seek healthcare, particularly for contraception, pregnancy, and abortion-related care (Zachor et al., 2018). This places healthcare providers in a unique position to identify and support those at risk of or experiencing RC. Yet many providers struggle to recognize RC because of its concealed nature, and they often lack the training, support, and resources needed to respond appropriately (Wellington et al., 2021).

Clarifying the health consequences linked to current or past experiences of RC could guide healthcare providers in recognizing and responding to RC. While previous systematic reviews have investigated how pregnancy coercion and contraceptive sabotage are associated with unintended pregnancies (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Grace & Fleming, 2016; Moulton et al., 2021), recent commentaries have only offered broad overviews of RC’s health impacts (Grace & Miller, 2023; Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021). To date, no comprehensive review has mapped the full range of health consequences stemming from the varied and complex behaviors that comprise RC. To address this gap, this study conducted a scoping review to examine evidence on the health consequences of experiencing RC. The lack of consensus on RC definition and measurement posed challenges for applying the stringent inclusion and appraisal criteria required for systematic reviews or meta-analyses (Munn et al., 2018), making a scoping review the most appropriate methodology to map and synthesize the breadth of available evidence on RC health consequences that can inform future research and intervention strategies in healthcare settings.

Methods

This scoping review followed the JBI Methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) and adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018). We published the review protocol to minimize duplication and enhance transparency in the review process (Saldanha et al., 2023). This paper addresses one of the research questions outlined in the protocol: What are the health consequences of experiencing RC?

Eligibility Criteria

The eligibility criteria included original, peer-reviewed articles published in English between January 1, 2010, and June 2, 2024. The year 2010 was selected as it marks the first formal use of the term “reproductive coercion” in academic literature (Miller et al., 2010). We applied no restrictions regarding participant age, gender, country, study context, perpetrator identity, or study design. A broad definition of RC-guided inclusion, encompassing any behavior described in the literature as interfering with a person’s reproductive decision-making. We excluded studies that (a) focused solely on the scientific or biological aspects of reproduction, (b) comprised gray literature, conference abstracts, commentaries, dissertations, book chapters, editorials, or protocols, or (c) discussed sexual coercion and violence without addressing reproductive impacts. A comprehensive justification for the eligibility criteria appears in the published protocol (Saldanha et al., 2023).

Search Strategy

The search strategy used adjacency operators and Boolean logic to link terms related to reproduction with those related to coercion and violence. The detailed search strategy is available in the published protocol. We conducted searches across five databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. A research librarian supported a pilot search in December 2022. We ran the full search on January 23, 2023, and again on June 2, 2024.

Study Selection

We imported all identified studies into COVIDENCE software, subsequently removing duplicate studies. Two reviewers (SS and DL) independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for inclusion. A third reviewer (JRB) resolved any conflicts. Due to the high volume of studies retrieved, a forward citation search was not conducted.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The authors developed a data extraction tool for this review; this tool is available in the published protocol (Saldanha et al., 2023). After piloting the tool on a subset of 12 articles, 1 reviewer (SS) extracted the data and held regular meetings with the research team (JRB, MM, DM) to verify the process and discuss emerging findings. Extracted data included (a) study characteristics (title, author(s), year of publication, aim, methodology, and context), (b) victim-survivor sample characteristics (age, gender, and inclusion criteria), (c) RC victimization characteristics (behaviors, perpetrators, and measurement tool used), and (d) main findings related to health consequences (non-significant and significant quantitative results with p-values <.05 and 95% confidence intervals, qualitative themes and interpretations). We conducted a qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and present the results in narrative and tabular formats. We extracted text describing the impact of RC on any health-related outcome from each article. Using an inductive, iterative approach, the first author (SS) synthesized data segments and accompanying codes and, with input from the research team, developed categories of RC-related health consequences (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

Results

Selection of Evidence Sources

The database search identified 1,554 articles. After removing duplicates, the screening process assessed 782 titles and abstracts. Of these, 166 full-text articles underwent eligibility assessment based on the inclusion criteria, resulting in including 62 studies. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram, which outlines the number of studies included at each stage of the selection process.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart for included studies.

Article Characteristics

We identified 62 eligible studies, conducted across 18 countries. The United States of America (USA) was the most frequent country of publication (n = 38), followed by Australia (n = 5) and Ethiopia (n = 4). Most studies used a quantitative cross-sectional design (n = 52), followed by qualitative interviews (n = 11). We identified many studies published between 2020 and 2024 (n = 39). Study settings varied, with SRH services (n = 25) and community-based contexts (n = 25) being the most common. Across the 62 included studies, the vast majority of participants were described as women or female, most often of reproductive age (15–49 years), with only 3 studies explicitly reporting gender identity of participants (Grace et al., 2022b; Lévesque et al., 2021; Swan et al., 2022). Only four studies included participants who were men/male: three quantitative studies (Hayes & Kopp, 2020; Swan et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2018) and one qualitative study (Thomas et al., 2024). Quantitative studies controlled for gender/sex in analyses, while the qualitative study presented findings where participants’ gender was apparent through quotes. Overall, the evidence on RC health consequences presented in this review largely reflects women’s experiences of RC. Supplemental Appendix A provides detailed descriptions of each study’s characteristics. Table 1 presents the frequency and percentage of study characteristics.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Evidence Sources.

Characteristics	Count Frequency	Frequency (%)
Country
USA	38	61.3
Australia	5	8.1
Ethiopia	4	6.5
Kenya	3	4.8
India	2	3.7
Côte d’Ivoire	2	3.7
Namibia	1	1.6
Liberia	1	1.6
Canada	1	1.6
South Africa	1	1.6
Nigeria	1	1.6
Mexico	1	1.6
Uganda	1	1.6
Burkina Faso	1	1.6
Malawi	1	1.6
Brazil	1	1.6
Nicaragua	1	1.6
Pakistan	1	1.6
Methodology
Quantitative cross-sectional	44	83.9
Qualitative interviews	11	17.7
Qualitative focus groups	1	1.6
Longitudinal study	1	1.6
Retrospective cohort	1	1.6
Year of publication
2010–2014	6	9.7
2015–2019	17	27.4
2020–2023	39	62.9
Context
Sexual/reproductive health	25	25.8
Community	25	25.8
Education	10	16.1
Population-based	8	12.9
Community healthcare	5	8.1
Tertiary care	4	7.4
Domestic/family violence	3	5.5
General practice	1	1.6
Child welfare system	1	1.6
RC behavior
Pregnancy coercion	58	93.6
Contraceptive sabotage	49	79
Coerced termination of pregnancy	7	11.3
Coerced continuation of pregnancy	6	9.7
Forced contraception	2	3.7
RC perpetrator
Intimate partner—male sex	41	66.1
Intimate partner—sex/gender not specified	20	32.3
Family members	8	12.9
Health provider	1	1.6

Note. RC = reproductive coercion.

RC Behaviors

Most studies examined the health consequences of pregnancy coercion (n = 58) and contraceptive sabotage (n = 49). Pregnancy coercion included threats, violence, or forced sex aimed at causing pregnancy; this also included instances of contraceptive sabotage where studies measured pregnancy intent. Contraceptive sabotage referred to interference with contraception in the absence of clear intent to cause pregnancy. Fewer studies explored the health consequences of coerced continuation of pregnancy (n = 6) or coerced termination of pregnancy (n = 7). Only two studies (3.7%) investigated the health impacts of forced contraception, including forced sterilization.

RC Perpetrators

Most studies identified intimate partners as the primary perpetrators of RC. Specifically, 41 studies referenced male partners, while 20 did not specify partner sex and/or gender. A smaller number of studies identified family members (n = 8) and healthcare providers (n = 1) as perpetrators.

Summary of RC Health Consequences

The health consequences of RC victimization spanned five key domains: (a) reproductive health, (b) sexual health, (c) mental health, (d) physical health, and (e) healthcare utilization. Supplemental Appendix B provides a comprehensive overview of the health consequences reported across the included studies.

Reproductive Health

Studies reported reduced general contraceptive use among individuals experiencing RC, based on quantitative evidence (John & Edmeades, 2018; Katz et al., 2017; Kraft et al., 2021; Rosenfeld et al., 2018; Silverman et al., 2019; Tomar et al., 2020; Wollum et al., 2023; Wood et al., 2022a) and qualitative findings (Buchanan & Humphreys, 2021; Uysal et al., 2022). However, several quantitative studies did not find a significant association between RC and contraceptive use, including Katz and Sutherland (2020), Marques et al. (2024), Northridge et al. (2017), Perry et al. (2020), Sutherland et al. (2015), Thiel de Bocanegra et al. (2010), Wood et al. (2023b, 2023c), and Wright et al. (2018).

Two quantitative studies observed a negative association between RC and oral contraceptive use (Cheng et al., 2021; Tomar et al., 2020), while others found no association with condom use (Cheng et al., 2021; Grace et al., 2022b; Hill et al., 2019; Northridge et al., 2017; Sutherland et al., 2015; Tomar et al., 2020). Conversely, quantitative studies associated RC with increased use of emergency contraception (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2021; Kazmerski et al., 2015), injectables (Skracic et al., 2021; Sutherland et al., 2015), implants (McCloskey et al., 2020; Skracic et al., 2021), and intrauterine devices (McCloskey et al., 2020; Skracic et al., 2021). RC was associated with covert contraceptive use in quantitative studies (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2023b, 2023c), with qualitative studies also describing covert contraception as a safety strategy in response to experiencing pregnancy coercion/contraceptive sabotage (Brenner et al., 2021; Grace et al., 2020, 2022a; Thiel de Bocanegra et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2024; Wood et al., 2023c). Two quantitative studies found that RC was associated with reporting female sterilization (Cheng et al., 2021; Skracic et al., 2021). Most studies found no association between RC and use of other contraceptive methods such as the ring, patch, or withdrawal (Grace et al., 2022b; Northridge et al., 2017; Skracic et al., 2021; Sutherland et al., 2015).

Studies identified associations between RC and both ever experiencing pregnancy (Grace et al., 2022b; PettyJohn et al., 2021; Sutherland et al., 2015) and current or recent pregnancies (Grace et al., 2022a; Rosenbaum & DiClemente, 2020; Rosenfeld et al., 2018). Researchers consistently reported unintended pregnancy as the most robust reproductive health outcome of RC, supported by both quantitative (Ghayur et al., 2023; Holliday et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2014; Skracic et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2023a; Zemlak et al., 2024) and qualitative studies (Buchanan & Humphreys, 2021; Thiel de Bocanegra et al., 2010; Uysal et al., 2022; Wood et al., 2023b). A few studies found no significant association (Perry et al., 2020; Rosenfeld et al., 2018; Samankasikorn et al., 2019), suggesting that an unintended pregnancy may not always equate to a coerced pregnancy. One study associated RC with having had a miscarriage (Cheng et al., 2021), though findings varied (Grace et al., 2022a). Others reported positive associations with abortion (Cheng et al., 2021; Ghayur et al., 2023; Grace et al., 2022a; McCloskey et al., 2020; Sutherland et al., 2015), with several qualitative studies documenting covert abortion as a safety strategy in response to RC (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2021; Grace et al., 2022a; Thomas et al., 2024). One qualitative study connected pregnancy coercion driven by son preference with multiple closely spaced pregnancies (Puri et al., 2011). Fay and Yee (2020) found a positive association between experiencing RC and low birth weight neonates, but no association with preterm birth or stillbirth.

Sexual Health

Quantitative studies consistently identified a significant association between RC and increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs; Grace et al., 2022b; Jones et al., 2016; Kraft et al., 2021; McCloskey et al., 2020; Northridge et al., 2017). Two studies directly attributed this risk to non-consensual condom removal (Lévesque et al., 2021; Willie et al., 2021). Other studies associated RC to reduced sexual desire (Lévesque et al., 2021), heightened sexual anxiety and depression (Sheeran et al., 2025), and decreased sexual assertiveness (Sheeran et al., 2025), although this study found no significant effect on sexual satisfaction (Sheeran et al., 2025). One study examining human immunodeficiency virus risk found higher acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis among women who reported experiencing contraceptive sabotage by a male partner (Willie et al., 2017).

Mental Health

Price et al. (2022) documented a significant association between RC and poorer overall mental health, with qualitative accounts describing emotional outcomes of experiencing RC such as self-blame, guilt, and diminished self-worth (Brenner et al., 2021; Buchanan & Humphreys, 2021; Puri et al., 2011). Several studies reported increased anxiety (Fay & Yee, 2020; Sheeran et al., 2025; Steinberg et al., 2016; Tarzia et al., 2018), stress (Sheeran et al., 2025; Steinberg et al., 2016), psychological distress (Willie & Callands, 2018), and reduced life satisfaction (Sheeran et al., 2025) among those experiencing RC. Qualitative findings reinforced these mental health outcomes (Bakare & Gentz, 2020; Lévesque et al., 2021). Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) consistently appeared as one of the most prevalent mental health consequence of RC, with multiple quantitative studies reporting significant associations (Alexander et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2017; Grace et al., 2022c; Jiwatram-Negrón et al., 2022; McCauley et al., 2014; Sheeran et al., 2025; Tarzia et al., 2018; Zemlak et al., 2024). Depression was also frequently associated with RC (Alexander et al., 2021; Grace et al., 2022d; Kraft et al., 2021; Sheeran et al., 2025; Zemlak et al., 2024), though a few studies found no significant association (Anderson et al., 2017; Grace et al., 2022c; Tarzia et al., 2018). Studies further associated RC with higher rates of alcohol and drug misuse (Muñoz et al., 2023; PettyJohn et al., 2021; Rosenbaum & DiClemente, 2020), though some results remained inconclusive. One study examined suicidal behavior but found no significant association with RC (Jiwatram-Negrón et al., 2022).

Physical Health

Few studies investigated the physical health consequences of experiencing RC. Hayes & Kopp (2020) found no association between RC and self-reported physical health. One study identified a significant association between RC and anemia (Fay & Yee, 2020). Puri et al. (2011) qualitatively noted the physical gynecologic harm of undergoing multiple forced abortions, though the study provided little detail beyond noting physical trauma. Bakare and Gentz (2020) reported qualitative evidence on the impact of forced sterilization on weight changes, abdominal pain, and back pain.

Healthcare Utilization

Several studies reported a higher number of health visits among individuals experiencing RC (Cheng et al., 2021; Grace et al., 2022b, 2022d), and qualitative accounts attributed this to symptoms resulting from forced sterilization (Bakare & Gentz, 2020). However, not all studies found an association between experiencing RC and increased healthcare utilization (Fay & Yee, 2020; Hill et al., 2019). RC was also associated with delayed initiation of antenatal or prenatal care, with women experiencing RC more likely to have their first healthcare contact after 12 weeks of gestation (Price et al., 2022), and qualitative findings describing avoidance or missed appointments because of partner interference or fear (Buchanan & Humphreys, 2021). However, Wood et al., 2022b did not find an association between RC and completion of antenatal and postnatal care. Several studies reported increased use of SRH services among individuals experiencing RC. These included higher rates of STI testing (Grace et al., 2022b; Kazmerski et al., 2015), pregnancy testing and options counseling (Ghayur et al., 2023; Kazmerski et al., 2015; Lévesque et al., 2021), and abortion services (Upadhyay et al., 2014). However, other studies found no significant associations between RC and access to mental health services, contraceptive counseling, general health consultations (Cheng et al., 2021; Grace et al., 2022b, 2022d; Hill et al., 2019), or screening services, such as mammography and cervical cytology (Marques et al., 2024).

Discussion

This review comprehensively synthesizes the health consequences of experiencing RC across five key domains: reproductive, sexual, mental, physical health, and healthcare utilization. It extends evidence from previous systematic reviews that primarily identified associations between RC and unintended pregnancy or covert contraceptive use (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Grace & Fleming, 2016; Moulton et al., 2021), by mapping a broader range of health outcomes linked to five distinct RC behaviors. Most studies focused on pregnancy coercion and contraceptive sabotage, consistently associating these behaviors with adverse reproductive, sexual, and mental health outcomes. In contrast, few studies examined physical health impacts or healthcare utilization as a result of experiencing RC, revealing important gaps in the evidence base. Table 2 summarizes the key findings and their implications for research, practice, and policy.

Table 2.

Summary of Critical Findings and Associated Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy.

Critical Findings	Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy
Most of the 62 studies focused on pregnancy coercion and contraceptive sabotage, with male partners as primary perpetrators, and conducted in high-income countries.	Expand research to underexamined RC behaviors, including coercion to continue or terminate a pregnancy, and include more diverse populations and global contexts.
Studies reported RC is significantly associated with adverse mental health outcomes, including PTSD, anxiety, depression, and psychological distress.	Integrate trauma- and violence-informed, person-centered approaches in sexual and reproductive healthcare services. Cross-train mental health and domestic violence service providers to support individuals experiencing RC.
Findings on healthcare utilization behaviors were mixed, with both increased and decreased utilization reported. Limited evidence exists on physical health impacts.	Use longitudinal designs with larger, more diverse samples and health record data integration to assess causal pathways and long-term health impacts of RC.
Contraceptive use varied depending on the type and severity of RC, with some individuals using covert methods for safety.	Investigate how specific forms and severity of RC influence contraceptive behaviors. Promote patient-centered contraceptive counseling that respects individual autonomy and safety.
Structural barriers such as cost, transport, and provider access can limit contraceptive and abortion access, reinforcing interpersonal RC.	Examine how structural conditions interact with RC to shape reproductive outcomes. Develop policy responses that reduce structural barriers and support autonomy in SRH decision-making.

Note. RC = reproductive coercion; SRH = sexual and reproductive health; PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

Health consequences of coercion to continue or terminate a pregnancy, and of forced contraception, remain underexplored. Although some studies have addressed these behaviors, they are often not fully captured within broader conceptualizations of RC. For example, the Turnaway Study demonstrated that denying individuals abortion and forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies led to greater psychological harm such as heightened anxiety and low self-esteem (Biggs et al., 2017), as well as increased risks of complications like eclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage (Gerdts et al., 2016). Yet few studies in this review examined the broader psychological or reproductive health outcomes associated with coerced continuation or termination of pregnancy, or with forced contraception, indicating a critical gap in the evidence base.

Findings from this review show that the impact of RC on contraceptive use is mixed and varies by both the type of contraception and the nature of coercive behaviors. Some studies reported reduced contraceptive use, particularly oral contraceptives, while others found increased use of covert methods like injectables or intrauterine devices. These varying patterns may reflect the form RC takes; for example, verbal pressure (e.g., being told not to use contraception) may interfere with contraceptive choices differently than physical interference (e.g., flushing pills) (Skracic et al., 2021). However, few studies have examined how the severity or form of RC impacts contraceptive choices, limiting practical guidance for healthcare providers. Recognizing how different forms of RC shape contraceptive decision-making is essential for providing patient-centered contraceptive care. Healthcare providers must offer flexible, non-judgmental support and ensure access to a full range of contraceptive options, including support for starting, stopping, switching methods, or choosing non-use or traditional methods, based on individual needs, safety, and autonomy.

The varied findings on the impact of RC on contraceptive use are further complicated by differences in how contraceptive use is measured across studies. Many studies relied on self-reported contraceptive use without accounting for whether use is consistent, voluntary, or effective. In some cases, a person’s desire or intention to use contraception may not align with their actual use (Boydell & Galavotti, 2022), often reflecting RC and the influence of others. In addition, most studies assume a link between contraceptive use and pregnancy intention (Boydell & Galavotti, 2022), but individuals may use contraception for reasons unrelated to pregnancy, and their pregnancy preferences may not always align with their contraceptive behavior (Samari et al., 2020). Future RC measurement tools should account for the possibility that pregnancy and contraceptive intentions may diverge, and that reported contraceptive use does not always reflect true reproductive autonomy (Holt et al., 2023).

This review affirms the association between RC and unintended pregnancies, while also highlighting that coerced pregnancies do not always equate to unintended pregnancies. Pregnancy intentions may shift over time due to changing motivations within both violent and nonviolent relationships (Carter et al., 2013; Rocca et al., 2019). Future studies should clearly differentiate between pregnancy intention and coercion. In some cases, an existing pregnancy may reduce an abusive partner’s need to exert RC (Grace et al., 2022a). Additionally, some individuals may describe RC without identifying a partner’s clear desire for pregnancy (Katz et al., 2017). Exploring partner perspectives on RC and pregnancy intentions could provide deeper insight (Tarzia & McKenzie, 2024). Reproductive counseling in healthcare settings could consider the influence of significant others on decision-making.

Our findings, which identify the association of RC with negative mental health outcomes such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety, demonstrate a clear need to integrate mental health and SRH care for individuals reporting RC. Future studies should examine in more detail co-occurring mental health outcomes associated with RC (Jiwatram-Negrón et al., 2022). Trauma- and violence-informed care remains essential in recognizing RC, creating safe spaces for disclosure, and ensuring appropriate, safe responses (Wathen & Mantler, 2022). Such care must prioritize patient-centered support and non-directive care to ensure informed decision-making (Anderson et al., 2017). Cross-training mental health professionals and domestic violence workers may improve support for those experiencing RC and associated mental health risks (Jiwatram-Negrón et al., 2022).

Most studies included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, particularly the USA, highlighting a need for more research in diverse global contexts. As RC evidence from low- and middle-income countries grows, future research could conduct comparative analyses of health consequences by region and country, allowing for more nuanced insights into how RC operates in diverse social, political, and health system contexts. Additionally, majority were cross-sectional in design, limiting the ability to draw causal inferences. Future research should prioritize longitudinal and prospective cohort studies, as well as the use of health record data, to better capture the temporal relationship between RC and health outcomes (Fay & Yee, 2020). RC research to date has also focused primarily on cisgender women in heterosexual relationships with male intimate partners as perpetrators, overlooking the broader range of perpetrator identities and diverse population experiences. Expanding this focus to include different gender identities, relationship dynamics, and cultural contexts is essential for a more comprehensive understanding of RC. In addition, most evidence identified in the review was collected from SRH settings. However, in some countries, contraception and pregnancy tests are widely available over the counter (Grace et al., 2022b; Hill et al., 2019), which may help explain the absence of significant associations between RC and healthcare utilization. Further investigation is needed in settings like pharmacies to better understand how RC influences healthcare utilization.

Finally, most studies in this review focused on interpersonal forms of RC, with limited attention to structural or institutional barriers that also restrict contraceptive access (Engelbert Bain et al., 2021). Some researchers suggest treating structural and interpersonal RC as separate but related factors (Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021). Yet women who wish to use long-acting reversible contraception as a safety strategy can have costs or lack of provider access obstruct their use (DiCenzo et al., 2023). These barriers may reinforce partner interference or limit resistance strategies. In addition, restrictive political climates surrounding reproductive rights, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the USA, have implications for health complications due to forced pregnancies and reduced access to safe abortion, disproportionately impacting marginalized populations (Keegan et al., 2023). Further research should examine how structural conditions interact with interpersonal RC in shaping access to contraception, pregnancy, and abortion care.

Limitations

This scoping review did not include a critical appraisal of the quality of included studies, which limits the ability to offer definitive conclusions or recommendations for policy and practice. Beyond variation in RC measurement and definition across studies, the predominance of cross-sectional designs, reliance on retrospective self-report in most studies, and potential recall or publication bias may also have contributed to variability and mixed findings across studies. Most studies also originated from the USA, restricting the generalizability of findings to low- and middle-income contexts. Limiting the review to English-language, peer-reviewed studies published since 2010 may have excluded relevant insights available in gray literature, earlier publications, or research published in other languages. Some studies may have overstated the health consequences of contraceptive sabotage by inferring pregnancy intent without directly measuring or reporting it. Our search strategy did not capture broader reproductive autonomy literature, which, while relevant to reproductive decision-making, was not explicitly described using RC terminology; future research could examine structural threats to reproductive autonomy and their intersections with interpersonal RC in shaping health outcomes. We also reported findings as presented in the included studies; however, many included did not explicitly differentiate RC from overlapping forms of IPV or sexual violence, which is an important consideration that future systematic reviews or meta-analyses could address. Healthcare provider coercion in reproductive contexts, including obstetric/gynecologic violence, is often not labeled as RC. Our review, therefore, may not capture the full extent of this issue, though we included available evidence given the growing use of the term RC to encompass coercion enacted by health providers.

Conclusion

This review demonstrates the significant health consequences of experiencing RC, with most evidence centered on pregnancy coercion and contraceptive sabotage. To build a more complete understanding, future research should explore underexamined forms of RC, such as coercion to continue or terminate a pregnancy, and broaden geographic scope beyond high-income countries. Greater attention is needed to how the type and severity of RC behaviors influence contraceptive choices, and how structural barriers such as cost and access interact with partner interference. Differentiating between unintended and coerced pregnancies and incorporating partner perspectives on pregnancy intent will strengthen conceptual clarity of RC. Healthcare responses must integrate trauma- and violence-informed and person-centered approaches to SRH that holistically address the intersection of psychological and physical health. Expanding research to diverse healthcare and community settings and employing longitudinal research methods will support stronger evidence and more effective interventions.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380251383931 – Supplemental material for Reproductive Coercion and Associated Health Consequences: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380251383931 for Reproductive Coercion and Associated Health Consequences: A Scoping Review by Susan Saldanha, Jessica R. Botfield, Desireé LaGrappe, Maryam Moradi and Danielle Mazza in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380251383931 – Supplemental material for Reproductive Coercion and Associated Health Consequences: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380251383931 for Reproductive Coercion and Associated Health Consequences: A Scoping Review by Susan Saldanha, Jessica R. Botfield, Desireé LaGrappe, Maryam Moradi and Danielle Mazza in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by an International Tuition Scholarship and a Graduate Research Scholarship from the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University (Grant no: N/A).

Ethical Considerations

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

ORCID iDs

Susan Saldanha

Jessica R. Botfield

Desireé LaGrappe

Danielle Mazza

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Susan Saldanha is a Research Fellow at the SPHERE NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence at Monash University. Her research focuses on strengthening general practice responses to reproductive coercion through mixed-methods approaches, examining how it is experienced, recognised, and addressed in healthcare to improve support for those experiencing reproductive coercion.

Dr Jessica R. Botfield is a clinician-researcher and Senior Research Fellow at the SPHERE NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence at Monash University, and a Senior Research Officer/Registered Nurse at Family Planning Australia. Her research focuses on promoting equitable access to contraception, particularly postpartum contraception, through nurse-and midwifery-led models of care.

Desireé LaGrappe, is a Registered Nurse, Lecturer at the Alfred Clinical School and an NHMRC PhD Scholar at La Trobe University’s Judith Lumley Centre. Her research within SPHERE focuses on improving measurement of reproductive coercion and abuse, advancing gender equality and promoting equitable access to quality reproductive and sexual healthcare.

Dr Maryam Moradi is an academic midwife and women’s sexual and reproductive health researcher. She completed her PhD at the Australian National University and her research focuses on endometriosis, reproductive health, midwifery, and improving women’s health and wellbeing through primary care.

Professor Danielle Mazza is Head of the Monash Department of General Practice and leads the SPHERE Centre of Research Excellence in Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health in Primary Care. An internationally recognised clinician researcher, her work focuses on improving access and quality of care in women’s sexual and reproductive health.

References

*Alexander

K. A.

Willie

T. C.

McDonald-Mosley

Campbell

J. C.

Miller

Decker

M. R.

(2021). Associations between reproductive coercion, partner violence, and mental health symptoms among young Black women in Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), NP9839–NP9863.

*Anderson

J. C.

Grace

K. T.

Miller

(2017). Reproductive coercion among women living with HIV: An unexplored risk factor for negative sexual and mental health outcomes. AIDS (London, England), 31(16), 2261–2265.

Bacchus

Mezey

Bewley

(2006). A qualitative exploration of the nature of domestic violence in pregnancy. Violence Against Women, 12(6), 588–604.

*Bagwell-Gray

M. E.

Thaller

Messing

J. T.

Durfee

(2021). Women’s reproductive coercion and pregnancy avoidance: Associations with homicide risk, sexual violence, and religious abuse. Violence Against Women, 27(12–13), 2294–2312.

*Bakare

Gentz

(2020). Experiences of forced sterilisation and coercion to sterilise among women living with HIV (WLHIV) in Namibia: An analysis of the psychological and socio-cultural effects. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28(1), 1758439.

Biggs

M. A.

Upadhyay

U. D.

McCulloch

C. E.

Foster

D. G.

(2017). Women’s mental health and well-being 5 years after receiving or being denied an abortion: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(2), 169–178.

Boydell

Galavotti

(2022). Getting intentional about intention to use: A scoping review of person-centered measures of demand. Studies in Family Planning, 53(1), 61–132.

*Brenner

Ugarte

W. J.

Carlsson

Salazar

(2021). Men’s reproductive coercion of women: Prevalence, experiences, and coping strategies—a mixed method study in urban health facilities in León, Nicaragua. BMC Women’s Health, 21(1), 310.

*Buchanan

Humphreys

(2021). Coercive control during pregnancy, birthing and postpartum: Women’s experiences and perspectives on health practitioners’ responses. Journal of Family Violence, 36, 325–335.

10.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359(9314), 1331–1336.

11.

Carter

Kraft

J. M.

Hock-Long

Hatfield-Timajchy

(2013). Relationship characteristics and feelings about pregnancy among Black and Puerto Rican young adults. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45(3), 148–156.

12.

*Cheng

Wilson

E. G.

Botfield

J. R.

Boerma

C. J.

Estoesta

Peters

L. J.

McGeechan

(2021). Outcomes of routine screening for reproductive coercion in a family planning service. Sexual Health, 18(5), 349–357.

13.

Coker

A. L.

(2007). Does physical intimate partner violence affect sexual health? A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(2), 149–177.

14.

Coleman

J. N.

Hellberg

S. N.

Hopkins

T. A.

Thompson

K. A.

Bruening

A. B.

Jones

A. C.

(2023). Situating reproductive coercion in the sociocultural context: An ecological framework model to inform research, practice, and policy in the United States. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 24(4), 471–488.

15.

DiCenzo

Gill

Brandi

(2023). Who gets to decide? Assessing contraceptive coercion in health care settings. Health Services Research, 58(4), 767–772.

16.

Engelbert Bain

Amu

Enowbeyang Tarkang

. (2021). Barriers and motivators of contraceptive use among young people in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of qualitative studies. PLoS One, 16(6), e0252745.

17.

*Fay

K. E.

Yee

L. M.

(2020). Birth outcomes among women affected by reproductive coercion. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 65(5), 627–633.

18.

Gerdts

Dobkin

Foster

D. G.

Schwarz

E. B.

(2016). Side effects, physical health consequences, and mortality associated with abortion and birth after an unwanted pregnancy. Women’s Health Issues, 26(1), 55–59.

19.

*Ghayur

M. S.

Jamil

Sadia

Jamil

Adeeb

Nadir

Iftikhar

(2023). Reproductive coercion and its effects on women’s reproductive health outcomes-a cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Sciences, 31(3), 173–177.

20.

Grace

K. T.

Fleming

(2016). A systematic review of reproductive coercion in international settings. World Medical & Health Policy, 8(4), 382–408.

21.

Grace

K. T.

Anderson

J. C.

(2018). Reproductive coercion: a systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(4), 371–390.

22.

*Grace

K. T.

Alexander

K. A.

Jeffers

N. K.

Miller

Decker

M. R.

Campbell

Glass

(2020). Experiences of reproductive coercion among Latina women and strategies for minimizing harm: “The path makes us strong”. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 65(2), 248–256.

23.

*Grace

K. T.

Decker

M. R.

Alexander

K. A.

Campbell

Miller

Perrin

Glass

(2022a). Reproductive coercion, intimate partner violence, and unintended pregnancy among Latina women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1604–1636.

24.

*Grace

K. T.

Decker

M. R.

Holliday

C. N.

Talis

Miller

(2022b). Reproductive coercion in college health clinic patients: Risk factors, care seeking and perpetration. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(4), 1464–1475.

25.

*Grace

K. T.

Holliday

C. N.

Bevilacqua

Kaur

Miller

Decker

M. R.

(2022c). Sexual and reproductive health and reproductive coercion in women victim/survivors receiving housing support. Journal of Family Violence, 38(4), 713–722.

26.

Grace

K. T.

Miller

(2023). Future directions for reproductive coercion and abuse research. Reproductive Health, 20(1), 5.

27.

*Grace

K. T.

Perrin

N. A.

Clough

Miller

Glass

N. E.

(2022d). Correlates of reproductive coercion among college women in abusive relationships: Baseline data from the college safety study. Journal of American College Health, 70(4), 1204–1211.

28.

Graham

Haintz

G. L.

Bugden

de Moel-Mandel

Donnelly

McKenzie

(2023). Re-defining reproductive coercion using a socio-ecological lens: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 1371.

29.

*Hayes

B. E.

Kopp

P. M.

(2020). Gender differences in the effect of past year victimization on self-reported physical and mental health: Findings from the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 293–312.

30.

*Hill

A. L.

Jones

K. A.

McCauley

H. L.

Tancredi

D. J.

Silverman

J. G.

Miller

(2019). Reproductive coercion and relationship abuse among adolescents and young women seeking care at school health centers. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 134(2), 351–359.

31.

*Holliday

C. N.

McCauley

H. L.

Silverman

J. G.

Ricci

Decker

M. R.

Tancredi

D. J.

Burke

J. G.

Documét

Borrero

Miller

(2017). Racial/ethnic differences in women’s experiences of reproductive coercion, intimate partner violence, and unintended pregnancy. Journal of Women’s Health, 26(8), 828–835.

32.

Holt

Galavotti

Omoluabi

Challa

Waiswa

Liu

(2023). Preference-aligned fertility management as a person-centered alternative to contraceptive use-focused measures. Studies in Family Planning, 54(1), 301–308.

33.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

34.

*Jiwatram-Negrón

Cheng

S. Y.

Wachter

Mazzio

A. K.

Ward

Reed

Messing

J. T.

(2022). Examining Associations Between Multiple Types of IPV and Adverse Mental Health Among IPV Survivors. Journal of Family Violence, 39, 177–191.

35.

*John

N. A.

Edmeades

(2018). Reproductive coercion and contraceptive use in Ethiopia. Etude de la Population Africaine, 32(1), 3884–3892.

36.

*Jones

K. A.

Cornelius

M. D.

Silverman

J. G.

Tancredi

D. J.

Decker

M. R.

Haggerty

C. L.

De Genna

N. M.

Miller

(2016). Abusive Experiences and Young Women’s Sexual Health Outcomes: Is Condom Negotiation Self-Efficacy a Mediator?. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 48(2), 57–64.

37.

*Katz

Poleshuck

E. L.

Beach

Olin

(2017). Reproductive coercion by male sexual partners: Associations with partner violence and college women’s sexual health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21), 3301–3320.

38.

*Katz

Sutherland

M. A.

(2020). College women’s experiences of male partner contraceptive interference: Associations with intimate partner violence and contraceptive outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(21–22), 4350–4374.

39.

*Kazmerski

McCauley

H. L.

Jones

Borrero

Silverman

J. G.

Decker

M. R.

Tancredi

Miller

(2015). Use of reproductive and sexual health services among female family planning clinic clients exposed to partner violence and reproductive coercion. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19, 1490–1496.

40.

Keegan

Francis

Chalmers

Hoofnagle

Noory

Essig

Hoefer

Bhardwaj

Kaufman

Crandall

M. L.

Zaidi

Koch

McLaren

Henry

Dorsey

Zakrison

Chor

(2023). Trauma of abortion restrictions and forced pregnancy: Urgent implications for acute care surgeons. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 8(1), e001067.

41.

*Kraft

J. M.

Snead

M. C.

Brown

J. L.

Sales

J. M.

Kottke

M. J.

Hatfield-Timajchy

Goedken

(2021). Reproductive coercion among African American female adolescents: Associations with contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. Journal of Women’s Health, 30(3), 429–437.

42.

Laverty

de Vos

(2021). Reproductive violence as a category of analysis: Disentangling the relationship between ‘the sexual’ and ‘the reproductive’ in transitional justice. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 15(3), 616–635.

43.

*Lévesque

Rousseau

Dumerchat

(2021). Influence of the relational context on reproductive coercion and the associated consequences. Violence Against Women, 27(6–7), 828–850.

44.

Marie Stopes Australia. (2020). Hidden Forces: A white paper on reproductive coercion in contexts of family and domestic violence. https://www.mariestopes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Hidden-Forces-Second-Edition-.pdf

45.

*Marques

G. C. M.

Ferreira

S. L.

do Sacramento de Almeida

Diniz Farias

P. L.

Bezerra Ribeiro

de Almeida Cardoso Coelho

(2024). Factors associated with the health and reproductive autonomy of Quilombola women in Brazil. Investigación y Educación en Enfermería, 42(1), e10.

46.

*McCauley

H. L.

Falb

K. L.

Streich-Tilles

Kpebo

Gupta

(2014). Mental health impacts of reproductive coercion among women in Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 127(1), 55–59.

47.

*McCloskey

L. A.

Hitchcock

Eloff

Dinh

Masemola

(2020). The role of reproductive coercion in women’s risk for HIV: A case-control study of outpatients in Gauteng, South Africa. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 151(3), 377–382.

48.

*Miller

Decker

M. R.

McCauley

H. L.

Tancredi

D. J.

Levenson

R. R.

Waldman

Schoenwald

Silverman

J. G.

(2010). Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception, 81(4), 316–322.

49.

*Miller

McCauley

H. L.

Tancredi

D. J.

Decker

M. R.

Anderson

Silverman

J. G.

(2014). Recent reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancy among female family planning clients. Contraception, 89(2), 122–128.

50.

Moore

A. M.

Frohwirth

Miller

(2010). Male reproductive control of women who have experienced intimate partner violence in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 70(11), 1737–1744.

51.

Moulton

J. E.

Corona

M. I. V.

Vaughan

Bohren

M. A.

(2021). Women’s perceptions and experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Plos One, 16(12), e0261551.

52.

Munn

Peters

M. D.

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143.

53.

*Muñoz

E. A.

Shorey

R. C.

Temple

J. R.

(2023). Reproductive coercion victimization and associated mental health outcomes among female-identifying young adults. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 24(4), 538–554.

54.

*Northridge

J. L.

Silver

E. J.

Talib

H. J.

Coupey

S. M.

(2017). Reproductive coercion in high school-aged girls: Associations with reproductive health risk and intimate partner violence. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 30(6), 603–608.

55.

*Perry

Landrian

McQuade

de Bocanegra

H. T.

(2020). Contraceptive need, intimate partner violence, and reproductive coercion among women attending a syringe exchange program. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 14(4), e70–e75.

56.

Peters

M. D.

Marnie

Tricco

A. C.

Pollock

Munn

Alexander

McInerney

Godfrey

C. M.

Khalil

(2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126.

57.

*PettyJohn

M. E.

Reid

T. A.

Miller

Bogen

K. W.

McCauley

H. 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, 120, 105731.

58.

Potter

L. C.

Morris

Hegarty

García-Moreno

Feder

(2021). Categories and health impacts of intimate partner violence in the World Health Organization multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. International Journal of Epidemiology, 50(2), 652–662.

59.

*Price

Sharman

L. S.

Douglas

H. A.

Sheeran

Dingle

G. A.

(2022). Experiences of reproductive coercion in Queensland women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6), NP2823–NP2843.

60.

*Puri

Adams

Ivey

Nachtigall

R. 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, 72(7), 1169–1176.

61.

Rocca

C. H.

Wilson

M. R.

Jeon

Foster

D. G.

(2019). Stability of retrospective pregnancy intention reporting among women with unwanted pregnancies in the United States. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 23(11), 1547–1555.

62.

*Rosenbaum

J. E.

DiClemente

R. J.

(2020). Reproductive coercion sometimes works: evaluating whether young African-American women who experience reproductive coercion or birth control sabotage are more likely to become pregnant. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 20(4), 265–282.

63.

*Rosenfeld

E. A.

Miller

Zhao

Sileanu

F. E.

Mor

M. K.

Borrero

(2018). Male partner reproductive coercion among women veterans. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 218(2), 239.e1–239.e8 .

64.

Rowlands

Walker

(2019). Reproductive control by others: Means, perpetrators and effects. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 45(1), 61–67.

65.

Saldanha

LaGrappe

Botfield

J. R.

Mazza

(2023). Risk factors and health consequences of experiencing reproductive coercion: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open, 13(10), e073326.

66.

*Samankasikorn

Alhusen

Yan

Schminkey

D. L.

Bullock

(2019). Relationships of reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence to unintended pregnancy. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 48(1), 50–58.

67.

Samari

Foster

D. G.

Ralph

L. J.

Rocca

C. H.

(2020). Pregnancy preferences and contraceptive use among US women. Contraception, 101(2), 79–85.

68.

*Sheeran

Jenkins

Humphreys

Ter Horst

Higgins

(2025). Investigating the impact of reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence on psychological and sexual wellbeing. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(3–4), 726–755.

69.

*Silverman

J. G.

Boyce

S. C.

Dehingia

Rao

Chandurkar

Nanda

Hay

Atmavilas

Saggurti

Raj

(2019). Reproductive coercion in Uttar Pradesh, India: Prevalence and associations with partner violence and reproductive health. SSM—Population Health, 9, 100484.

70.

*Skracic

Lewin

A. B.

Steinberg

J. R.

(2021). Types of lifetime reproductive coercion and current contraceptive use. Journal of Women’s Health, 30(8), 1078–1085.

71.

*Steinberg

J. R.

Tschann

J. M.

Furgerson

Harper

C. C.

(2016). Psychosocial factors and pre-abortion psychological health: The significance of stigma. Social Science & Medicine, 150, 67–75.

72.

*Sutherland

M. A.

Fantasia

H. C.

Fontenot

(2015). Reproductive coercion and partner violence among college women. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 44(2), 218–227.

73.

*Swan

L. E.

Goffnett

Pless

Andrews

(2022). Reproductive coercion in heterosexual and sexual minority emerging adults: prevalence and behavioral health impact. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(9–10), 6389–6406.

74.

Tarzia

Hegarty

(2021). A conceptual re-evaluation of reproductive coercion: Centring intent, fear and control. Reproductive Health, 18(1), 87.

75.

Tarzia

McKenzie

(2023) Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Understanding perpetrator motivations and overlaps with coercive control. PLoS One, 19(4), e0299069.

76.

*Tarzia

Thuraisingam

Novy

Valpied

Quake

Hegarty

(2018). Exploring the relationships between sexual violence, mental health and perpetrator identity: A cross-sectional Australian primary care study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1410.

77.

*Thiel de Bocanegra

Rostovtseva

D. P.

Khera

Godhwani

(2010). Birth control sabotage and forced sex: Experiences reported by women in domestic violence shelters. Violence Against Women, 16(5), 601–612.

78.

*Thomas

H. L.

Bell

S. O.

Karp

Omoluabi

Kibira

S. P.

Makumbi

Galadanci

Solomon

Seme

Moreau

Wood

S. N.

(2024). A qualitative exploration of reproductive coercion experiences and perceptions in four geo-culturally diverse sub-Saharan African settings. SSM-Qualitative Research in Health, 5, 100383.

79.

*Tomar

Dehingia

Dey

A. K.

Chandurkar

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2020). Associations of intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion with contraceptive use in Uttar Pradesh, India: How associations differ across contraceptive methods. PLoS One, 15(10), e0241008.

80.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D. J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

. . . Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.

81.

*Upadhyay

U. D.

Dworkin

S. L.

Weitz

T. A.

Foster

D. G.

(2014). Development and validation of a reproductive autonomy scale. Studies in Family Planning, 45(1), 19–41.

82.

*Uysal

Stockman

J. K.

Miller

Rocha-Jimenez

Rangel

G. M.

Mercado

A. P.

Servin

A. E.

(2022). “At Least I Didn’t Get Raped”: A Qualitative Exploration of IPV and Reproductive Coercion among Adolescent Girls Seeking Family Planning in Mexico. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(7–8), NP4740–NP4761.

83.

Warling

Treder

K. M.

Brandi

Kumar

Fay

K. E.

(2023). An Ecological Model of Reproductive Coercion. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 68(6), 697–701.

84.

Wathen

C. N.

Mantler

(2022). Trauma-and violence-informed care: orienting intimate partner violence interventions to equity. Current Epidemiology Reports, 9(4), 233–244.

85.

Wellington

Hegarty

Tarzia

(2021). Barriers to responding to reproductive coercion and abuse among women presenting to Australian primary care. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 424.

86.

*Willie

Kershaw

Campbell

J. C.

Alexander

K. A.

(2017). Intimate partner violence and PrEP acceptability among low-income, young black women: Exploring the mediating role of reproductive coercion. AIDS and Behavior, 21, 2261–2269.

87.

*Willie

T. C.

Alexander

K. A.

Caplon

Kershaw

T. S.

Safon

C. B.

Galvao

R. W.

Kaplan

Caldwell

Calabrese

S. K.

(2021). Birth control sabotage as a correlate of women’s sexual health risk: An exploratory study. Women’s Health Issues, 31(2), 157–163.

88.

*Willie

T. C.

Callands

T. A.

(2018). Reproductive coercion and prenatal distress among young pregnant women in Monrovia, Liberia. Health care for Women International, 39(9), 968–974.

89.

*Wollum

Bornstein

Mopiwa

Norris

Gipson

J. D.

(2023). Assessing the relationship between reproductive autonomy and contraceptive use in rural Malawi. Reproductive Health, 20(1), 142.

90.

*Wood

S. N.

Dozier

J. L.

Karp

Desta

Decker

M. R.

Shiferaw

Seme

Yirgu

Zimmerman

L. A.

(2022a). Pregnancy coercion, correlates, and associated modern contraceptive use within a nationally representative sample of Ethiopian women. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 30(1), 2139891.

91.

*Wood

S. N.

Kennedy

S. R.

Akumu

Tallam

Asira

Hameeduddin

Zimmerman

L. A.

Glass

Decker

M. R.

(2023a). Correlates and contributors of reproductive coercion across the socioecological framework among intimate partner violence survivors in Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Family Violence, 38(1), 25–38.

92.

*Wood

S. N.

Kennedy

S. R.

Akumu

Tallam

Asira

Zimmerman

L. A.

Glass

Decker

M. R.

(2023b). Understanding the link between reproductive coercion and covert use of contraception as a safety strategy for women experiencing violence in Nairobi’s urban informal settlements. Violence Against Women, 29(6–7), 1343–1367.

93.

*Wood

S. N.

Thomas

H. L.

Thiongo

Guiella

Bazié

Onadja

Mosso

Fassassi

Gichangi

Decker

M. R.

(2023c). Intersection of reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence: cross-sectional influences on women’s contraceptive use in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya. BMJ Open, 13(5), e065697.

94.

*Wood

S. N.

Yirgu

Karp

Tadesse

M. Z.

Shiferaw

Zimmerman

L. A.

(2022b). The impact of partner autonomy constraints on women’s healthcare-seeking across the maternal and newborn continuum of care. EClinicalMedicine, 53, 101715.

95.

*Wright

R. L.

Fawson

P. R.

Siegel

Jones

Stone

(2018). Predictors of reproductive autonomy among a rural university population. Health & Social Work, 43(4), 235–242.

96.

Zachor

Chang

J. C.

Zelazny

Jones

K. A.

Miller

(2018). Training reproductive health providers to talk about intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion: An exploratory study. Health Education Research, 33(2), 175–185.

97.

Zemlak

J. L.

Marineau

Willie

T. C.

Addison

Edwards

Kershaw

Alexander

K. A.

(2024). Contraceptive use among women experiencing intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion: The moderating role of PTSD and depression. Violence against women, 30(9), 2075–2095.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

0.04 MB