Mixed-methods study assesses SRHR violations in ever-married women, highlighting critical gaps in support and awareness.
Sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHRs) are fundamental human rights that underpin gender equality, health, and sustainable development, yet violations remain widespread among women in many low- and middle-income settings due to entrenched socio-cultural norms, gender inequality, and unequal power relations within marriage. This study assessed both the violations and the exercise of SRHRs among ever-married women in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria, using a community-based cross-sectional mixed-methods design. A total of 423 ever-married women aged 15–49 years were selected through multistage sampling from two Local Government Areas, with quantitative data collected via semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaires and qualitative insights obtained from five focus group discussions; quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, while qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis. Overall, 25.1% of respondents reported experiencing violations of SRHRs, with the most common being violations of the right to freedom from sexual violence (29.3%), and husbands identified as the primary perpetrators (38.7%). Despite this, 90.1% of respondents reported exercising at least one SRHR, most commonly the right to marriage (27.9%) and the right to family planning (25.1%), and among those who experienced violations, 57.5% reported taking some form of action against the violation, the perpetrator, or both. Qualitative findings further highlighted intimate partner violence, coercive childbearing, and socio-cultural expectations as key drivers of SRHR violations. These findings indicate that SRHR violations remain prevalent among married women in Ibadan, underscoring the need to strengthen awareness, legal protections, and community support mechanisms to enhance women’s capacity to exercise their sexual and reproductive health rights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abraham et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: