Cargando…

Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence

BACKGROUND: Reproductive coercion (RC) is a type of abuse where a partner asserts control over a woman’s reproductive health trajectories. Recent research emphasizes that RC experiences may differ within and across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as compared to higher income contexts, give...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wood, Shannon N., Thomas, Haley L., Guiella, Georges, Bazié, Fiacre, Mosso, Rosine, Fassassi, Raimi, Akilimali, Pierre Z., Thiongo, Mary, Gichangi, Peter, Oumarou, Sani, OlaOlorun, Funmilola M., Omoluabi, Elizabeth, Khanna, Anoop, Kibira, Simon Peter Sebina, Makumbi, Fredrick, Decker, Michele R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9881347/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36707833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01568-1
_version_ 1784879092049379328
author Wood, Shannon N.
Thomas, Haley L.
Guiella, Georges
Bazié, Fiacre
Mosso, Rosine
Fassassi, Raimi
Akilimali, Pierre Z.
Thiongo, Mary
Gichangi, Peter
Oumarou, Sani
OlaOlorun, Funmilola M.
Omoluabi, Elizabeth
Khanna, Anoop
Kibira, Simon Peter Sebina
Makumbi, Fredrick
Decker, Michele R.
author_facet Wood, Shannon N.
Thomas, Haley L.
Guiella, Georges
Bazié, Fiacre
Mosso, Rosine
Fassassi, Raimi
Akilimali, Pierre Z.
Thiongo, Mary
Gichangi, Peter
Oumarou, Sani
OlaOlorun, Funmilola M.
Omoluabi, Elizabeth
Khanna, Anoop
Kibira, Simon Peter Sebina
Makumbi, Fredrick
Decker, Michele R.
author_sort Wood, Shannon N.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Reproductive coercion (RC) is a type of abuse where a partner asserts control over a woman’s reproductive health trajectories. Recent research emphasizes that RC experiences may differ within and across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as compared to higher income contexts, given social pressures surrounding childbearing. To date, nationally representative surveys have lacked comprehensive measures for RC, leading to gaps in understanding its prevalence and risk factors. Across eight LMICs (10 sites), we aimed to (1) validate the RC Scale; (2) calculate prevalence of RC and specific behaviors; and (3) assess correlates of RC. METHODS: This analysis leverages cross-sectional Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) data collected from November 2020 to May 2022. Analyses were limited to women in need of contraception (Burkina Faso n = 2767; Côte d'Ivoire n = 1561; Kongo Central, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) n = 830; Kinshasa, DRC n = 846; Kenya n = 4588; Kano, Nigeria n = 535; Lagos, Nigeria n = 612; Niger n = 1525; Rajasthan, India n = 3017; Uganda n = 2020). Past-year RC was assessed via five items adapted from the original RC Scale and previously tested in LMICs. Confirmatory factor analysis examined fit statistics by site. Per-item and overall prevalence were calculated. Site-specific bivariate and multivariable logistic regression examined RC correlates across the socioecological framework. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit across all sites, with moderate internal consistency (alpha range: 0.66 Cote d’Ivoire–0.89 Kinshasa, DRC/Lagos, Nigeria). Past-year reported prevalence of RC was highest in Kongo Central, DRC (20.3%) and lowest in Niger (3.1%). Prevalence of individual items varied substantially by geography. Polygyny was the most common RC risk factor across six sites (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) range: 1.59–10.76). Increased partner education levels were protective in Kenya and Kano, Nigeria (aOR range: 0.23–0.67). Other assessed correlates differed by site. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding RC prevalence and behaviors is central to providing woman-centered reproductive care. RC was most strongly correlated with factors at the partner dyad level; future research is needed to unpack the relative contributions of relationship power dynamics versus cultural norms surrounding childbearing. Family planning services must recognize and respond to women’s immediate needs to ensure RC does not alter reproductive trajectories, including vulnerability to unintended pregnancy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9881347
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98813472023-01-28 Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence Wood, Shannon N. Thomas, Haley L. Guiella, Georges Bazié, Fiacre Mosso, Rosine Fassassi, Raimi Akilimali, Pierre Z. Thiongo, Mary Gichangi, Peter Oumarou, Sani OlaOlorun, Funmilola M. Omoluabi, Elizabeth Khanna, Anoop Kibira, Simon Peter Sebina Makumbi, Fredrick Decker, Michele R. Reprod Health Research BACKGROUND: Reproductive coercion (RC) is a type of abuse where a partner asserts control over a woman’s reproductive health trajectories. Recent research emphasizes that RC experiences may differ within and across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as compared to higher income contexts, given social pressures surrounding childbearing. To date, nationally representative surveys have lacked comprehensive measures for RC, leading to gaps in understanding its prevalence and risk factors. Across eight LMICs (10 sites), we aimed to (1) validate the RC Scale; (2) calculate prevalence of RC and specific behaviors; and (3) assess correlates of RC. METHODS: This analysis leverages cross-sectional Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) data collected from November 2020 to May 2022. Analyses were limited to women in need of contraception (Burkina Faso n = 2767; Côte d'Ivoire n = 1561; Kongo Central, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) n = 830; Kinshasa, DRC n = 846; Kenya n = 4588; Kano, Nigeria n = 535; Lagos, Nigeria n = 612; Niger n = 1525; Rajasthan, India n = 3017; Uganda n = 2020). Past-year RC was assessed via five items adapted from the original RC Scale and previously tested in LMICs. Confirmatory factor analysis examined fit statistics by site. Per-item and overall prevalence were calculated. Site-specific bivariate and multivariable logistic regression examined RC correlates across the socioecological framework. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit across all sites, with moderate internal consistency (alpha range: 0.66 Cote d’Ivoire–0.89 Kinshasa, DRC/Lagos, Nigeria). Past-year reported prevalence of RC was highest in Kongo Central, DRC (20.3%) and lowest in Niger (3.1%). Prevalence of individual items varied substantially by geography. Polygyny was the most common RC risk factor across six sites (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) range: 1.59–10.76). Increased partner education levels were protective in Kenya and Kano, Nigeria (aOR range: 0.23–0.67). Other assessed correlates differed by site. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding RC prevalence and behaviors is central to providing woman-centered reproductive care. RC was most strongly correlated with factors at the partner dyad level; future research is needed to unpack the relative contributions of relationship power dynamics versus cultural norms surrounding childbearing. Family planning services must recognize and respond to women’s immediate needs to ensure RC does not alter reproductive trajectories, including vulnerability to unintended pregnancy. BioMed Central 2023-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9881347/ /pubmed/36707833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01568-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Wood, Shannon N.
Thomas, Haley L.
Guiella, Georges
Bazié, Fiacre
Mosso, Rosine
Fassassi, Raimi
Akilimali, Pierre Z.
Thiongo, Mary
Gichangi, Peter
Oumarou, Sani
OlaOlorun, Funmilola M.
Omoluabi, Elizabeth
Khanna, Anoop
Kibira, Simon Peter Sebina
Makumbi, Fredrick
Decker, Michele R.
Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence
title Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence
title_full Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence
title_fullStr Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence
title_full_unstemmed Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence
title_short Prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence
title_sort prevalence and correlates of reproductive coercion across ten sites: commonalities and divergence
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9881347/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36707833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01568-1
work_keys_str_mv AT woodshannonn prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT thomashaleyl prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT guiellageorges prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT baziefiacre prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT mossorosine prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT fassassiraimi prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT akilimalipierrez prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT thiongomary prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT gichangipeter prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT oumarousani prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT olaolorunfunmilolam prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT omoluabielizabeth prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT khannaanoop prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT kibirasimonpetersebina prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT makumbifredrick prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence
AT deckermicheler prevalenceandcorrelatesofreproductivecoercionacrosstensitescommonalitiesanddivergence