Recognising and responding to reproductive coercion in general practice: a qualitative study.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Susan Saldanha, Jessica Botfield, Danielle Mazza
{"title":"Recognising and responding to reproductive coercion in general practice: a qualitative study.","authors":"Susan Saldanha, Jessica Botfield, Danielle Mazza","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reproductive coercion (RC) is a form of gender-based violence that interferes with reproductive autonomy. General practice is a key primary care setting where individuals, particularly women, access support for sexual and reproductive health (SRH). However, limited research explores how general practice clinicians recognise and respond to RC. We aimed to explore how general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) recognise and respond to RC in Australian general practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and 6 PNs. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants identified consultation-based 'red flags', including partner dominating the consult, patient discomfort, and disruptions in appointment or contraception use, that prompted RC inquiry. Participants proactively asked about RC in SRH consultations, tailoring questions to the context of contraception, pregnancy, or abortion care. Balancing safety, autonomy, and support was described as challenging, especially in cases involving adolescents or women with disabilities where carers or parents influenced patient consent. Participants described practical and patient-centred strategies, such as using telehealth consultations, discreet signals, covert care planning, and whole-of-practice team-based vigilance, to support women experiencing RC in general practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings highlight how general practice clinicians in Australia recognise and respond to RC and can inform the development of clinical guidelines and practice approaches to strengthen recognition and response to RC in general practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202944","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Reproductive coercion (RC) is a form of gender-based violence that interferes with reproductive autonomy. General practice is a key primary care setting where individuals, particularly women, access support for sexual and reproductive health (SRH). However, limited research explores how general practice clinicians recognise and respond to RC. We aimed to explore how general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) recognise and respond to RC in Australian general practice.

Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and 6 PNs. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results: Participants identified consultation-based 'red flags', including partner dominating the consult, patient discomfort, and disruptions in appointment or contraception use, that prompted RC inquiry. Participants proactively asked about RC in SRH consultations, tailoring questions to the context of contraception, pregnancy, or abortion care. Balancing safety, autonomy, and support was described as challenging, especially in cases involving adolescents or women with disabilities where carers or parents influenced patient consent. Participants described practical and patient-centred strategies, such as using telehealth consultations, discreet signals, covert care planning, and whole-of-practice team-based vigilance, to support women experiencing RC in general practice.

Conclusions: Findings highlight how general practice clinicians in Australia recognise and respond to RC and can inform the development of clinical guidelines and practice approaches to strengthen recognition and response to RC in general practice.

认识和应对生殖强迫在一般做法:一项定性研究。
背景:生殖强迫(RC)是一种基于性别的暴力形式,干扰生殖自主。全科诊所是个人,特别是妇女获得性健康和生殖健康支助的关键初级保健场所。然而,有限的研究探讨了全科医生如何认识和应对RC。我们的目的是探讨全科医生(gp)和执业护士(pn)如何认识和响应RC在澳大利亚全科实践。方法:采用半结构化访谈法对10名全科医生和6名专科医生进行定性描述性研究。访谈通过Zoom进行,逐字记录,并使用归纳内容分析进行分析。结果:参与者确定了基于咨询的“危险信号”,包括伴侣主导咨询,患者不适,预约或避孕使用中断,这促使RC调查。参与者在性健康和生殖健康咨询中主动询问RC,根据避孕、怀孕或流产护理的背景定制问题。在安全、自主和支持之间取得平衡具有挑战性,特别是在涉及青少年或残疾妇女的案件中,在照顾者或父母影响患者同意的情况下。与会者描述了实用的和以病人为中心的战略,例如使用远程保健咨询、谨慎的信号、隐蔽的护理规划和基于整个实践团队的警惕,以支持妇女在一般实践中经历RC。结论:研究结果强调了澳大利亚的全科医生如何认识和应对RC,并可以为临床指南和实践方法的发展提供信息,以加强全科医生对RC的认识和应对。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信