Susan Saldanha , Jessica R. Botfield , Maryam Moradi , Jeana Wong , Danielle Mazza
{"title":"澳大利亚保健和社会服务提供者对生殖强迫的人际和结构形式的看法。","authors":"Susan Saldanha , Jessica R. Botfield , Maryam Moradi , Jeana Wong , Danielle Mazza","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study explored how Australian health and social service providers describe both interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion (RC), and how they perceive these forms to interact in practice from their experiences supporting RC victim-survivors. Guided by an adapted socio-ecological framework that helped distinguish interpersonal and structural RC, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 general practitioners, nurses, social workers, domestic violence workers, and obstetrician/gynaecologists. Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) <em>Conflict and control: being powered by fear</em>, demonstrates how interpersonal coercion emerges when reproductive conflict is coupled with fear and power imbalances, prompting concealment or compliance; (2) <em>The path of ‘shoulds’</em>, captures how explicit and implicit coercion arise from layered interpersonal and structural pressures, including cultural, societal and institutional norms that dictate who should or should not bear a child, with structural conditions often enabling interpersonal control; and (3) <em>Unspoken, unenforced, yet deeply understood pressure</em>, describes tacit coercion, internalised pressures often rooted in cultural and societal expectations that prompt individuals to self-regulate their reproductive choices or make protective decisions within constrained circumstances. Across the three themes, RC was understood as a relational and socially embedded phenomenon, where true freedom from coercion in reproductive decision-making depends not only on the absence of direct interference but also on having the space and supportive structures to make choices freely, safely, and in alignment with one's own values. Future research must centre victim-survivor experiences to deepen this conceptualisation and explore how interpersonal and structural forms of RC intersect in lived realities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"385 ","pages":"Article 118628"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australian health and social service providers’ perspectives on interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion\",\"authors\":\"Susan Saldanha , Jessica R. Botfield , Maryam Moradi , Jeana Wong , Danielle Mazza\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study explored how Australian health and social service providers describe both interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion (RC), and how they perceive these forms to interact in practice from their experiences supporting RC victim-survivors. Guided by an adapted socio-ecological framework that helped distinguish interpersonal and structural RC, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 general practitioners, nurses, social workers, domestic violence workers, and obstetrician/gynaecologists. Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) <em>Conflict and control: being powered by fear</em>, demonstrates how interpersonal coercion emerges when reproductive conflict is coupled with fear and power imbalances, prompting concealment or compliance; (2) <em>The path of ‘shoulds’</em>, captures how explicit and implicit coercion arise from layered interpersonal and structural pressures, including cultural, societal and institutional norms that dictate who should or should not bear a child, with structural conditions often enabling interpersonal control; and (3) <em>Unspoken, unenforced, yet deeply understood pressure</em>, describes tacit coercion, internalised pressures often rooted in cultural and societal expectations that prompt individuals to self-regulate their reproductive choices or make protective decisions within constrained circumstances. Across the three themes, RC was understood as a relational and socially embedded phenomenon, where true freedom from coercion in reproductive decision-making depends not only on the absence of direct interference but also on having the space and supportive structures to make choices freely, safely, and in alignment with one's own values. Future research must centre victim-survivor experiences to deepen this conceptualisation and explore how interpersonal and structural forms of RC intersect in lived realities.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"385 \",\"pages\":\"Article 118628\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625009591\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625009591","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Australian health and social service providers’ perspectives on interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion
This study explored how Australian health and social service providers describe both interpersonal and structural forms of reproductive coercion (RC), and how they perceive these forms to interact in practice from their experiences supporting RC victim-survivors. Guided by an adapted socio-ecological framework that helped distinguish interpersonal and structural RC, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 general practitioners, nurses, social workers, domestic violence workers, and obstetrician/gynaecologists. Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) Conflict and control: being powered by fear, demonstrates how interpersonal coercion emerges when reproductive conflict is coupled with fear and power imbalances, prompting concealment or compliance; (2) The path of ‘shoulds’, captures how explicit and implicit coercion arise from layered interpersonal and structural pressures, including cultural, societal and institutional norms that dictate who should or should not bear a child, with structural conditions often enabling interpersonal control; and (3) Unspoken, unenforced, yet deeply understood pressure, describes tacit coercion, internalised pressures often rooted in cultural and societal expectations that prompt individuals to self-regulate their reproductive choices or make protective decisions within constrained circumstances. Across the three themes, RC was understood as a relational and socially embedded phenomenon, where true freedom from coercion in reproductive decision-making depends not only on the absence of direct interference but also on having the space and supportive structures to make choices freely, safely, and in alignment with one's own values. Future research must centre victim-survivor experiences to deepen this conceptualisation and explore how interpersonal and structural forms of RC intersect in lived realities.
期刊介绍:
Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.