Stigma and barriers in reproductive health among students in Russian and Syrian cities: a comparative sociological study

Stigma and issues faced by students in the reproductive health sphere in Syria and Russia have been studied. Based on data from the July 2025 pilot sociological survey, which included 495 respondents (245 in Russia and 250 in Syria), the impact of economic, political, institutional, and cultural factors on young people’s family plans and reproductive health strategies has been analyzed. The analysis results show that financial difficulties and unstable employment are the most common obstacles in both countries, although Syrian students report more serious difficulties due to the political instability in the country. Russian students often identify career and educational priorities as obstacles, reflecting patterns related to demographic transition. Cultural stigmatization has proved to be another significant obstacle. Although it is present in both contexts, it is especially noticeable in Syria, where taboos related to discussing reproductive health issues persist. The digital environment often turns out to be both a space for informing and discussing issues, as well as the stigmatization sphere. The study shows that unresolved reproductive health issues can lead to delayed marriage, lower fertility, and hidden health complications. The analysis combines symbolic interactionism, conflict theory, and demographic transition theory to clarify the complex and multifaceted nature of these obstacles, demonstrating that reproductive health is not only a medical issue, but also a profoundly social phenomenon. A comparative perspective has been offered on how stable and crisis-affected societies deal with such universal issues as stigmatization and inequality in different ways. The implications for social and family policy have been shown, the need for destigmatization campaigns, anonymous services creation, including in digital format, aimed at young people, and institutional support strengthening in both Russia and Syria has been emphasized.

1. Antonov A.I., Medkov V.M. Sociology of the Family. Moscow: INFRA-M; 2007. 368 p. (In Russian).

2. Ashkar M., Mkrtumova I.V. Reproductive attitudes and social consequences of reproductive health disorders among student youth in megacities (based on sociological research in Russia and Syria). Sociology. 2025;4:85–91. (In Russian).

3. Belova N.I., Petrova Z.M. Reproductive Attitudes of the Student Youth (a review of empirical studies). RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2017;4(17):555–567. (In Russian).

4. Bourdieu P. Practical Sense. St. Petersburg: Aleteya; 2001. 562 p. (In Russian).

5. Collins R. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic Press; 1975. 606 p.

6. DeJong J. et al. Reproductive, Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health in Conflict: A Case Study on Syria Using Countdown Indicators. BMJ Global Health. 2017;2(3).

7. Ege E. et al. Knowledge and Practices About Sexual and Reproductive Health in University Students. Sexuality and Disability. 2011;3(29):229–238.

8. Foucault M. The history of sexuality. Confessions of the flesh. Moscow: Ad Marginem; 2022. 416 p. (In Russian).

9. Goffman E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1986. 176 p.

10. Hall K.S. et al. Bad girl and unmet family planning need among Sub-Saharan African adolescents: the role of sexual and reproductive health stigma. Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare. 2018;1(2):55–64.

11. Haraway D. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In: Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York; Routledge; 1991. Pp.149–181.

12. Lesthaeghe R. The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition. Population and Development Review. 2010;36:211–251.

13. Levshuk L.M. et al. Reproductive Health of Youth: Problems and Solutions. Minsk: Belarusian State University Publ. House; 2017. (In Russian).

14. Mkrtumova I.V., Ashkar M.M. Behavioral patterns of reproductive health disorders among youth: a cross-country analysis. Social and Humanitarian Knowledge. 2024;3:58–62. (In Russian).

15. Nadarzynski T. et al. The role of digital interventions in sexual health. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2016;93.

16. Poteat T., Simmons A. Intersectional Structural Stigma, Community Priorities, and Opportunities for Transgender Health Equity: Findings from transforming the Carolinas Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2022;50:443–455.

17. Reese Masterson A. et al. Assessment of Reproductive Health and Violence Against Women Among Displaced Syrians in Lebanon. BMC Women’s Health. 2014;1(14).

18. Rohrer C.D., Modrek S. Decreasing reproductive and abortion care barriers: findings on the student health center’s role from a student survey. BMC Women’s Health. 2023;1(23):84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02230-5

19. Rostovskaya T.K. et al. Family and Demographic Processes in Contemporary Russia. Moscow: Ekon-Inform; 2021. 257 p. (In Russian).

20. Wilkins N.J. et al. Addressing HIV/Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Pregnancy Prevention Through Schools: An Approach for Strengthening Education, Health Services, and School Environments That Promote Adolescent Sexual Health and Well-Being. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2022;4(70):540–549.