医疗保健提供者对其在实施和延续生殖强迫中的作用的看法:一项定性研究。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Susan Saldanha, Jessica R Botfield, Danielle Mazza
{"title":"医疗保健提供者对其在实施和延续生殖强迫中的作用的看法:一项定性研究。","authors":"Susan Saldanha, Jessica R Botfield, Danielle Mazza","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-13240-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reproductive coercion (RC) refers to behaviours that interfere with an individual's autonomy over their reproductive health and decision-making. While traditionally attributed to partners or families, emerging research has highlighted the potential role healthcare providers may play in perpetrating and perpetuating RC. This study aims to explore the perspectives of Australian healthcare providers who deliver reproductive healthcare, focusing on their understanding of provider bias and coercion in the context of reproductive decision-making, both within their own practice and among their peers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to gather insights from 18 healthcare providers, including general practitioners, nurses, and obstetricians/gynaecologists who deliver reproductive healthcare services in Australia. Participants were purposively sampled to capture a range of perspectives, selecting individuals from different healthcare roles with experience in reproductive healthcare provision. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and themes were constructed through an inductive approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three key themes were identified: (1) Explicit refusals and their impact on reproductive autonomy, where participants described how refusal to provide or refer for services like abortion, sterilisation or long-acting contraception undermined patients' reproductive choices; (2) Implicit bias shaping reproductive decision-making, with participants reflecting on how unconscious biases influenced contraceptive counselling and other reproductive health decisions, often leading to coercive practices; and (3) Oversight and misinformation enabling coercion, where participants noted that a lack of awareness or incorrect assumptions about patient needs could unintentionally collude with coercive dynamics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This research highlights the complex ways healthcare providers may, often unintentionally, undermine reproductive autonomy through biased guidance, non-referral, or restrictive practices. Addressing both explicit and implicit provider biases is essential for fostering person-centred, non-coercive reproductive healthcare. Our findings underscore the need for healthcare systems to prioritise bias and reflective practice training, along with corresponding clinical guidance for providers. This must be supported by institutional safeguards, such as enforceable referral mechanisms and bias-aware education to ensure reproductive decisions are respected and supported in practice. By actively dismantling coercive practices, healthcare providers can ensure that the care they provide respects and upholds patients' reproductive intentions and autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1304"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12495849/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare provider perspectives on their role in perpetrating and perpetuating reproductive coercion: a qualitative study.\",\"authors\":\"Susan Saldanha, Jessica R Botfield, Danielle Mazza\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-025-13240-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reproductive coercion (RC) refers to behaviours that interfere with an individual's autonomy over their reproductive health and decision-making. While traditionally attributed to partners or families, emerging research has highlighted the potential role healthcare providers may play in perpetrating and perpetuating RC. This study aims to explore the perspectives of Australian healthcare providers who deliver reproductive healthcare, focusing on their understanding of provider bias and coercion in the context of reproductive decision-making, both within their own practice and among their peers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to gather insights from 18 healthcare providers, including general practitioners, nurses, and obstetricians/gynaecologists who deliver reproductive healthcare services in Australia. Participants were purposively sampled to capture a range of perspectives, selecting individuals from different healthcare roles with experience in reproductive healthcare provision. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and themes were constructed through an inductive approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three key themes were identified: (1) Explicit refusals and their impact on reproductive autonomy, where participants described how refusal to provide or refer for services like abortion, sterilisation or long-acting contraception undermined patients' reproductive choices; (2) Implicit bias shaping reproductive decision-making, with participants reflecting on how unconscious biases influenced contraceptive counselling and other reproductive health decisions, often leading to coercive practices; and (3) Oversight and misinformation enabling coercion, where participants noted that a lack of awareness or incorrect assumptions about patient needs could unintentionally collude with coercive dynamics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This research highlights the complex ways healthcare providers may, often unintentionally, undermine reproductive autonomy through biased guidance, non-referral, or restrictive practices. Addressing both explicit and implicit provider biases is essential for fostering person-centred, non-coercive reproductive healthcare. Our findings underscore the need for healthcare systems to prioritise bias and reflective practice training, along with corresponding clinical guidance for providers. This must be supported by institutional safeguards, such as enforceable referral mechanisms and bias-aware education to ensure reproductive decisions are respected and supported in practice. By actively dismantling coercive practices, healthcare providers can ensure that the care they provide respects and upholds patients' reproductive intentions and autonomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"1304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12495849/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13240-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13240-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:生殖强迫(RC)是指干扰个人生殖健康和决策自主权的行为。虽然传统上归因于伴侣或家庭,但新兴研究强调了医疗保健提供者在实施和延续RC方面可能发挥的潜在作用。本研究旨在探讨提供生殖保健的澳大利亚医疗保健提供者的观点,重点关注他们对生殖决策背景下的提供者偏见和胁迫的理解,无论是在他们自己的实践中还是在他们的同龄人中。方法:本定性研究采用半结构化访谈,收集来自18位医疗服务提供者的见解,包括在澳大利亚提供生殖保健服务的全科医生、护士和产科医生/妇科医生。有目的地对参与者进行抽样,以获取一系列观点,选择具有生殖保健提供经验的不同医疗保健角色的个人。访谈采用反身性主题分析法进行分析,主题采用归纳法构建。结果:确定了三个关键主题:(1)明确拒绝及其对生殖自主的影响,参与者描述了拒绝提供或转诊堕胎、绝育或长效避孕等服务如何损害患者的生殖选择;(2)影响生殖决策的隐性偏见,参与者反思无意识偏见如何影响避孕咨询和其他生殖健康决策,往往导致强制性做法;(3)疏忽和错误信息导致强制,参与者注意到对患者需求缺乏认识或错误假设可能无意中与强制动力相勾结。结论:本研究强调了复杂的方式,医疗保健提供者可能,往往无意中,通过有偏见的指导,非转诊,或限制性做法破坏生殖自主权。消除显性和隐性提供者偏见对于促进以人为本的非强制性生殖保健至关重要。我们的研究结果强调了医疗保健系统需要优先考虑偏见和反思实践培训,以及相应的临床指导提供者。这必须得到体制保障的支持,例如可执行的转诊机制和意识到偏见的教育,以确保生殖决定在实践中得到尊重和支持。通过积极废除强制做法,医疗保健提供者可以确保他们提供的护理尊重并维护患者的生育意愿和自主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Healthcare provider perspectives on their role in perpetrating and perpetuating reproductive coercion: a qualitative study.

Background: Reproductive coercion (RC) refers to behaviours that interfere with an individual's autonomy over their reproductive health and decision-making. While traditionally attributed to partners or families, emerging research has highlighted the potential role healthcare providers may play in perpetrating and perpetuating RC. This study aims to explore the perspectives of Australian healthcare providers who deliver reproductive healthcare, focusing on their understanding of provider bias and coercion in the context of reproductive decision-making, both within their own practice and among their peers.

Methods: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to gather insights from 18 healthcare providers, including general practitioners, nurses, and obstetricians/gynaecologists who deliver reproductive healthcare services in Australia. Participants were purposively sampled to capture a range of perspectives, selecting individuals from different healthcare roles with experience in reproductive healthcare provision. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and themes were constructed through an inductive approach.

Results: Three key themes were identified: (1) Explicit refusals and their impact on reproductive autonomy, where participants described how refusal to provide or refer for services like abortion, sterilisation or long-acting contraception undermined patients' reproductive choices; (2) Implicit bias shaping reproductive decision-making, with participants reflecting on how unconscious biases influenced contraceptive counselling and other reproductive health decisions, often leading to coercive practices; and (3) Oversight and misinformation enabling coercion, where participants noted that a lack of awareness or incorrect assumptions about patient needs could unintentionally collude with coercive dynamics.

Conclusions: This research highlights the complex ways healthcare providers may, often unintentionally, undermine reproductive autonomy through biased guidance, non-referral, or restrictive practices. Addressing both explicit and implicit provider biases is essential for fostering person-centred, non-coercive reproductive healthcare. Our findings underscore the need for healthcare systems to prioritise bias and reflective practice training, along with corresponding clinical guidance for providers. This must be supported by institutional safeguards, such as enforceable referral mechanisms and bias-aware education to ensure reproductive decisions are respected and supported in practice. By actively dismantling coercive practices, healthcare providers can ensure that the care they provide respects and upholds patients' reproductive intentions and autonomy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
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