Elsevier

Contraception

Volume 91, Issue 6, June 2015, Pages 438-455
Contraception

Review article
How does intimate partner violence affect condom and oral contraceptive Use in the United States?: A systematic review of the literature

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.02.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is estimated to affect 25% of adult women in the United States alone. IPV directly impacts women’s ability to use contraception, resulting in many of unintended pregnancies and STIs. This review examines the relationship between IPV and condom and oral contraceptive use within the United States at two levels: the female victim’s perspective on barriers to condom and oral contraceptive use, in conjunction with experiencing IPV (Aim 1) and the male perpetrator’s perspective regarding condom and oral contraceptive use (Aim 2).

Study Design

We systematically reviewed and synthesized all publications meeting the study criteria published since 1997. We aimed to categorize the results by emerging themes related to each study aim.

Results

We identified 42 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We found 37 studies that addressed Aim 1. Within this we identified three themes: violence resulting in reduced condom or oral contraceptive use (n= 15); condom or oral contraceptive use negotiation (n= 15); which we further categorized as IPV due to condom or oral contraceptive request, perceived violence (or fear) of IPV resulting in decreased condom or oral contraceptive use, and sexual relationship power imbalances decreasing the ability to use condoms or oral contraceptives; and reproductive coercion (n= 7). We found 5 studies that addressed Aim 2. Most studies were cross-sectional, limiting the ability to determine causality between IPV and condom or oral contraceptive use; however, most studies did find a positive relationship between IPV and decreased condom or oral contraceptive use.

Conclusions

Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research has demonstrated the linkages between female IPV victimization/male IPV perpetration and condom or oral contraceptive use. However, additional qualitative and longitudinal research is needed to improve the understanding of dynamics in relationships with IPV and determine causality between IPV, intermediate variables (e.g., contraceptive use negotiation, sexual relationship power dynamics, reproductive coercion), and condom and oral contraceptive use. Assessing the relationship between IPV and reproductive coercion may elucidate barriers to contraceptive use as well as opportunities for interventions to increase contraceptive use (such as forms of contraception with less partner influence) and reduce IPV and reproductive coercion.

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects millions of women each year and has been recognized as a leading cause for poor health, disability and death among women of reproductive age [1]. Population-based surveys found 13–61% of women throughout the world reported being physically assaulted by an intimate male partner during their lives [1] and 6–59% of women up to 49 years of age had experienced sexual assault by a partner at some point in their lives [2]. Specifically within the United States, 25% of adult women have been victims of severe IPV [3].

Further, in the United States, it is reported that only 62% of women aged 15–44 use contraception, equating to 23.2 million women who do not [4]. It is also estimated that 37% of births are unintended at the time of conception [5]. Moreover, as identified by Coker, IPV is known to impact a woman’s ability to use contraception and to result in unplanned pregnancies in a variety of ways (e.g., through physical violence and the ability to use barrier methods of contraception and through reduced self-esteem limiting the ability to negotiate condom use) [6]. Given this, the prevalence of IPV in the United States, and its linkages with contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy, it can be estimated that 2.1 million unintended pregnancies have resulted from this synergy [4], [5], [6]. We should also point out that IPV can interfere with a woman’s desire to be pregnant (and can lead to pregnancy loss from trauma) as well as limit her ability to protect herself from STIs [6]. We also acknowledge that men too, can be victims of IPV, with women as the perpetrators. For the purpose of this article, however, we will only focus on the perspective of pregnancy avoidance and women as victims.

Given the large number of unplanned pregnancies in the United States, it is imperative to better understand how the decision and ability to use condoms and oral contraceptives, specifically as both require daily action or action for each sexual encounter and therefore can be subject to partner interference, factor into relationships where IPV is present. The rationale for linking these issues is articulated in the review by Coker on the effect of IPV on women’s sexual health [6]. Specifically, Coker presents a mechanism linking IPV to unplanned pregnancy via multiple factors including contraceptive use [6]. Although linkages between IPV and unplanned pregnancy have been established in the literature, understanding intermediate variables (e.g., contraceptive use negotiation, sexual relationship power dynamics, reproductive coercion) that contribute to lack of condom and oral contraceptive use is necessary to develop more targeted interventions to improve more proximal (i.e., reductions in IPV victimization and perpetration, increased condom and oral contraceptive use) and distal outcomes (e.g., unplanned pregnancy, STIs) for women. Because of this, we conducted a systematic review to assess this pathway and to explore intermediate variables between IPV and condom and oral contraceptive use (hereafter referred to as contraceptive use). We undertook this review to explore this pathway at two pre-selected levels, that of the victim and that of the perpetrator. The first focuses on the female victim’s perspective on barriers to contraceptive use, in conjunction with experiencing IPV. The second level highlights the male perpetrator’s perspective regarding contraceptive use. Within these two foci, we then sought to investigate the clustered themes that emerged. The goal of this review is to attempt to identify and better understand the many factors affecting contraceptive use in relationships with IPV, with the intent of helping to inform intervention development in clinical settings.

Section snippets

Methods

A systematic approach was used to identify all original research addressing the association between IPV and contraceptive use among women in the United States. We define IPV as physical and/or sexual violence of a female by a current or former male intimate partner and contraceptive use as the use of condoms or oral contraceptives. We developed our conceptual framework based off of Coker’s mechanism [6], highlighting two themes that emerged from IPV and led to reduced contraceptive use: condom

Results

A total of 42 articles were identified as eligible for inclusion in this review. We identified 37 articles for Aim 1 (female victim’s perspective on barriers to contraceptive use, in conjunction with IPV) and grouped these into three themes that emerged across the studies: violence resulting in reduced contraceptive use; condom use negotiation, subcategorized as IPV due to contraceptive request, perceived violence (or fear) of IPV resulting in decreased contraceptive use, and sexual

Discussion

We reviewed the literature to determine the extent of research that exists linking IPV and contraceptive use. From the studies, it was apparent that there were several IPV-related factors that greatly influenced a woman’s ability to use contraception. Specifically, the use of violence against her eliminated the opportunity to choose to use contraception; experiencing violence due to a contraceptive request made women less likely to request the use of contraception at a later date; the fear of

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (K01DA031593, R01HD077891, and L60MD003701). The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References (51)

  • World Health Organization (WHO)

    Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: taking action and generating evidence

  • Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

    NISVS: an overview of 2010 summary report findings

  • J. Jones et al.

    Current contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006–2010, and changes in patterns of use since 1995

    Natl Health Stat Report

    (2010)
  • M. Mosher et al.

    Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010

    Natl Health Stat Report

    (2010)
  • A.L. Coker

    Does physical intimate partner violence affect sexual health? A systematic review

    Trauma Violence Abuse

    (2007)
  • M. Williams et al.

    Intimate partner violence and women's contraceptive use

    Violence Against Women

    (2008)
  • P. Scribano et al.

    The effects of intimate partner violence before, during, and after pregnancy in nurse visited first time mothers

    Matern Child Health J

    (2013)
  • J. Tucker et al.

    Interpersonal violence, substance use, and HIV-related behavior and cognitions: a prospective study of impoverished women in Los Angeles county

    AIDS Behav

    (2004)
  • L. Bogart et al.

    The association of partner abuse with risky sexual behaviors among women and men with HIV/AIDS

    AIDS Behav

    (2005)
  • C. Cavanaugh et al.

    Intimate partner sexual violence: a comparison of foreign-versus US-born physically abused Latinas

    J Urban Health

    (2013)
  • K. Hess et al.

    Intimate partner violence and sexually transmitted infections among young adult women

    J Sex Transm Dis

    (2012)
  • M. Mittal et al.

    Mediators of the relation between partner violence and sexual risk behavior among women attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic

    J Sex Transm Dis

    (2011)
  • M. Mittal et al.

    Intimate partner violence and condom use among women: does the information-motivation-behavioral skills model explain sexual risk behavior?

    AIDS Behav

    (2012)
  • J. Stockman et al.

    Intimate partner violence and HIV risk factors among African-American and African-Caribbean women in clinic-based settings

    AIDS Care

    (2013)
  • A. Gielen et al.

    Intimate partner violence, HIV status, and sexual risk reduction

    AIDS Behav

    (2002)
  • Cited by (87)

    • Women's (limited) agency over their sexual bodies: Contesting contraceptive recommendations in Brazil

      2021, Social Science and Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      As a consequence, health professionals also miss opportunities to more efficiently prevent unintended pregnancies. Williams et al. (2008) argue, for instance, that women experiencing IPV are more likely not to be using their preferred method of contraception (see also Bergmann and Stockman, 2015; Chacham et al., 2016). In fact, reproductive coercion in the home sphere is such a pervasive problem, that the WHO (2014) has issued guidelines to health providers on how to pursue the reasons for which women refuse specific contraceptive methods or insist on a particular one, as also seen in the current data.

    • Prevalence and correlates of having sexual and reproductive health priorities met by HIV providers among women living with HIV in a Canadian setting

      2021, Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare
      Citation Excerpt :

      While there are limited studies that assess provider-level factors as SRH priorities, there may be many reasons for provider SRH priorities of women living with HIV to be unmet. Intimate partner-level factors (e.g., partner violence; limited support or involvement by partners in contraception and family planning) and broader social-structural determinants of health (homelessness, drug use, incarceration) can play important roles in shaping access to sexual and reproductive health services access, including contraceptives and testing for STIs [15–18]. Stigma is also a well-documented barrier to accessing medical care, especially among people living with HIV [19,20].

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Competing Interests: None.

    View full text