Karen Trister Grace1,2, Michele R Decker2, Charvonne N Holliday2, Janine Talis3, Elizabeth Miller3. 1. George Mason University, School of Nursing, Fairfax, Virginia, USA. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Reproductive coercion is associated with poor health outcomes in women. This study examined exposure to and use of reproductive coercion and care seeking among college students. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 2291 college students of all genders seeking care in college health and counselling centres as baseline data for a cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Online surveys were collected (9/2015-3/2017). Descriptive statistics, chi-square, Fisher's exact and t-tests were analysed. RESULTS: Among female participants, 3.1% experienced reproductive coercion in the prior 4 months. Experience was associated with older age (p = .041), younger age at first intercourse (p = .004), Black/African American race (p < .001), behaviourally bisexual (p = .005), more lifetime sexual partners (p < .001) and ever pregnant (p = .010). Sexually transmitted infection (p < .001), recent drug use or smoking (p = .018; p = .001), requiring special health equipment (p = .049), poor school performance (p < .001) and all categories of violence (p = <.001-.015) were associated with women's reproductive coercion experience. Participants who experienced reproductive coercion were more likely to seek care for both counselling and healthcare, (p = .022) and sexually transmitted infection (p = .004). Among males, 2.3% reported recent use of reproductive coercion; these participants reported sexual violence perpetration (p = .005), less condom use (p = .003) and more sexual partners than non-perpetrators (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Although reproductive coercion was reported infrequently among college students, those students experiencing it appear to be at risk for poor health and academic outcomes. Health and counselling centres are promising settings to address RC and related health behaviours.
AIMS: Reproductive coercion is associated with poor health outcomes in women. This study examined exposure to and use of reproductive coercion and care seeking among college students. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 2291 college students of all genders seeking care in college health and counselling centres as baseline data for a cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Online surveys were collected (9/2015-3/2017). Descriptive statistics, chi-square, Fisher's exact and t-tests were analysed. RESULTS: Among female participants, 3.1% experienced reproductive coercion in the prior 4 months. Experience was associated with older age (p = .041), younger age at first intercourse (p = .004), Black/African American race (p < .001), behaviourally bisexual (p = .005), more lifetime sexual partners (p < .001) and ever pregnant (p = .010). Sexually transmitted infection (p < .001), recent drug use or smoking (p = .018; p = .001), requiring special health equipment (p = .049), poor school performance (p < .001) and all categories of violence (p = <.001-.015) were associated with women's reproductive coercion experience. Participants who experienced reproductive coercion were more likely to seek care for both counselling and healthcare, (p = .022) and sexually transmitted infection (p = .004). Among males, 2.3% reported recent use of reproductive coercion; these participants reported sexual violence perpetration (p = .005), less condom use (p = .003) and more sexual partners than non-perpetrators (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Although reproductive coercion was reported infrequently among college students, those students experiencing it appear to be at risk for poor health and academic outcomes. Health and counselling centres are promising settings to address RC and related health behaviours.
Authors: Heather L McCauley; Jay G Silverman; Kelley A Jones; Daniel J Tancredi; Michele R Decker; Marie C McCormick; S Bryn Austin; Heather A Anderson; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Contraception Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Traci Kazmerski; Heather L McCauley; Kelley Jones; Sonya Borrero; Jay G Silverman; Michele R Decker; Daniel Tancredi; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2015-07
Authors: Rebecca N Dick; Heather L McCauley; Kelley A Jones; Daniel J Tancredi; Sandi Goldstein; Samantha Blackburn; Erica Monasterio; Lisa James; Jay G Silverman; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Michele R Decker; Heather L McCauley; Daniel J Tancredi; Rebecca R Levenson; Jeffrey Waldman; Phyllis Schoenwald; Jay G Silverman Journal: Contraception Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Amber L Hill; Kelley A Jones; Heather L McCauley; Daniel J Tancredi; Jay G Silverman; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 7.661