We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Racial/Ethnic Differences in Women's Experiences of Reproductive Coercion, Intimate Partner Violence, and Unintended Pregnancy.
Journal of Women's Health 2017 August
OBJECTIVE: To explore racial/ethnic differences in reproductive coercion (RC), intimate partner violence (IPV), and unintended pregnancy (UIP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional, baseline data from an intervention that was conducted between August 2008 and March 2009 in five family planning clinics in the San Francisco, California area, to examine the association of race/ethnicity with RC, IPV, and UIP among female patients aged 16-29 (n = 1234).
RESULTS: RC was significantly associated with race/ethnicity, p < 0.001, [prevalence estimates: Black (37.1%), multiracial (29.2%), White (18.0%), Hispanic/Latina (24.0%), and Asian/Pacific Islander/other (API/other) (18.4%)]. Race/ethnicity was not associated with IPV. UIP was more prevalent among Black (50.3%) and multiracial (47.2%) women, with an overall range of 37.1%-50.3% among all racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, factors associated with UIP were RC [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.59, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.26-2.01] and Black (AOR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.02-2.60) and API/other (AOR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.15-1.73) race/ethnicity, which remained significant in the presence of RC. Race-stratified models revealed that RC increased odds of UIP for White (AOR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.45-2.93) and Black women (AOR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.14-2.60).
CONCLUSIONS: Black and multiracial women seeking care in family planning clinics have a disproportionately high prevalence of RC and UIP. RC may partially explain differences in UIP prevalence, with the effect of race/ethnicity slightly attenuated in RC-adjusted models. However, the impact of RC on risk for UIP was similar for White and Black women. Findings from this study support the need to understand and prevent RC, particularly among women of color. Results are foundational in understanding disparities in RC and UIP that may have implications for refinement of clinical care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional, baseline data from an intervention that was conducted between August 2008 and March 2009 in five family planning clinics in the San Francisco, California area, to examine the association of race/ethnicity with RC, IPV, and UIP among female patients aged 16-29 (n = 1234).
RESULTS: RC was significantly associated with race/ethnicity, p < 0.001, [prevalence estimates: Black (37.1%), multiracial (29.2%), White (18.0%), Hispanic/Latina (24.0%), and Asian/Pacific Islander/other (API/other) (18.4%)]. Race/ethnicity was not associated with IPV. UIP was more prevalent among Black (50.3%) and multiracial (47.2%) women, with an overall range of 37.1%-50.3% among all racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, factors associated with UIP were RC [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.59, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.26-2.01] and Black (AOR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.02-2.60) and API/other (AOR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.15-1.73) race/ethnicity, which remained significant in the presence of RC. Race-stratified models revealed that RC increased odds of UIP for White (AOR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.45-2.93) and Black women (AOR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.14-2.60).
CONCLUSIONS: Black and multiracial women seeking care in family planning clinics have a disproportionately high prevalence of RC and UIP. RC may partially explain differences in UIP prevalence, with the effect of race/ethnicity slightly attenuated in RC-adjusted models. However, the impact of RC on risk for UIP was similar for White and Black women. Findings from this study support the need to understand and prevent RC, particularly among women of color. Results are foundational in understanding disparities in RC and UIP that may have implications for refinement of clinical care.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app