News
A series of studies into this lesser-known form of intimate violence is hoped to form the basis of clinical guidelines for GPs.
GPs are ‘responding in really thoughtful ways’ to evidence of reproductive coercion, says a Melbourne researcher.
With reproductive coercion remaining ‘poorly recognised’ among many healthcare professionals, one expert is examining how it is managed in general practice and what can be improved.
Monash University’s Susan Saldanha has undertaken a series of studies into this lesser-known form of intimate violence, in hopes it will form the basis of clinical guidelines for GPs.
Reproductive coercion is a form of gender-based violence that interferes with a person’s control over their own reproductive autonomy.
It encompasses two main areas, promoting or preventing pregnancy, each of which can result in significant sexual, reproductive and mental health harms.
And within those two areas is a ‘spectrum’ of behaviours, says Ms Saldanha.
‘It could look like physical violence, but it could also look like subtle pressure and threats,’ she told newsGP.
‘Sometimes it is within households as well, like a partner refusing contraception or sabotaging it.’
A 2025 study of a sample of women in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health found that 4.5% of women had experienced reproductive coercion and abuse from a current or former partner by age 43–48 years.
This echoed a 2024 study, which found around one in 20 Australian adults had experienced reproductive coercion.
Participants in Ms Saldanha’s research identified consultation-based ‘red flags’, such as a partner dominating the consult, patient discomfort, or disruptions in appointments or contraception use.
But when faced with evidence of reproductive coercion, GPs and practice nurses are ‘responding in really thoughtful ways’.
‘They are ensuring that they see the patient alone for at least a part of the consultation if not the whole consultation, which is best practice when responding to violence,’ Ms Saldanha said.
‘They are very creative in ensuring that the patients actually receive the contraception or the abortion medicines if they need it – using telehealth, calling later.
‘They’re being very creative when they can’t actually respond in that consultation room, and they work as a team, so multiple doctors have to be aware of what’s happening with the patient, and a lot of people in the practice itself, like the receptionist, need to be extra aware.’
Ms Saldanha added that the religion and culture of some patients can make reproductive coercion ‘very difficult’ to address.
‘It makes it very difficult for a GP to step in, so that is probably an area that still needs quite a bit of work; that is a difficult aspect for GPs to deal with,’ she said.
Ms Saldanha hopes her findings can inform the development of clinical guidelines and practice approaches to strengthen recognition and response to reproductive coercion in general practice.
‘My next step here is to understand what possible interventions could look like,’ she said.
‘We have excellent family violence intervention, so I’m just trying to understand from a reproductive coercion perspective some of the things that we spoke about with different cultures, and what a provider can actually do in that consult, or after.’
Ms Saldanha’s work has been published in the Australian Journal of Primary Health, Social Science and Medicine, BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health and BMCC Health Services Research.
Log in below to join the conversation.
family violence gender-based violence intimate partner violence reproductive autonomy reproductive coercion reproductive health
newsGP weekly poll
How supportive are you of private health insurers funding additional general practice services that are not currently covered by Medicare?
link
