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

Laura E. T. Swan () and Lindsay M. Cannon
Additional contact information
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

IJERPH, 2024, vol. 21, issue 6, 1-14

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.

Keywords: contraceptive coercion; provider bias; discrimination; family planning; quality of care; patient-centered care (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/6/750/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/6/750/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:6:p:750-:d:1411325

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().