# data[].attributes.headline
Sherriff, S. 2025. A qualitative evaluation of lesbian and gay mothers’ experiences of midwifery care. British journal of midwifery. 33(4), pp.188–198.

# data[].attributes.subject
Sherriff, S. 2025. A qualitative evaluation of lesbian and gay mothers’ experiences of midwifery care. British journal of midwifery. 33(4), pp.188–198.

# data[].attributes.body
Authors note that facilitation of care for lesbian mothers and the effects of midwifery on their experiences is an understudied area of practice. The study aims to explore their holistic recollection of accessing midwifery services and identify any learning opportunities to improve equality in clinical practice.

Who: This study explored detailed accounts of midwifery care experienced by lesbian and gay women

Where: in the UK

This piece of research suggests that alongside competent clinical ability and sound theoretical knowledge it is vital that midwives have a comprehensive understanding of individual diversities including sexual orientation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Methods: Qualitative and Phenomenological study

# data[].attributes.subject
Methods: Qualitative and Phenomenological study

# data[].attributes.body
"Hermeneutic Phenomenological Framework" used to promote the fusion of lived experiences with current knowledge and clinical practice.

Semi Structured interviews used to collect in-depth data on participants' experiences of maternity care.

Thematic Analysis of Data

Reflexivity used: "The author pre-understandings were identified and an open view to potential prejudices were reflected upon prior to interview".

# data[].attributes.body
Transferability through sampling strategies: articulated the sampling process and criteria to justify the potential transferability of findings.

Purposive Sampling used

Voluntary Recuitment

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria drawn up. Dont know how these were decided upon. Inclusion criteria were that the participant was over 18 (why?); have received care in the UK (fair - the study is about midwifery care in the UK), within the last 5 years (the study is also aimed at creating more recent knowledge so this is fair, and reduces the chance of bias from mis-remembering), and the birthing parent identifies as lesbian or gay mother.

Exclusion criteria included anyone in ongoing litigation in relation to their maternity care (this is fair and ethical).

The author notes that the exclusion criteria "Reduced discussion of unrelated information an supported ethical protection" outlining that they felt concerned that they would be pulled into lengthy distraction son other topics however part of the value of qualitative research is emersion in that world. If all these ties are related to maternity, they remain relevant.

10 lesbian participants - not a hugely representative sample. The author states that the sample size of 10 was deemed appropriate for data saturation in view of the single researcher restrains and academic guidance from facilitators. In other words there may not have been data saturation, but there were insufficent academic resources to allow for additional capacity to manage a larger sample. Seems fairly narrow/small number as they were recruited nationally.

Recruited via social media. - Facebook and Social Media adverts approved by admins within a specialised LGBTQ+ parents group. Snowball sampling? Forums? Social media is a valuable recruitment tool but how do they know they maximised their opportunity for sampling?

# data[].attributes.body
Semi Structured Interviews exploring all areas of maternity care

Interviews were transcribed

Virtual interviews also conducted to facilitate flexibility. These were necessary due to covid restrictions on social distancing.

Semi structured questions were asked to allow for full disclosure of phenomena and guide the direction of conversation to reduce any extraneous data. eh "can you describe your pregnancy/birth/postpartum experience to me?"

Information covered booking appointment, intrapartum care, general health questions, and to identify model of care provided.

THE researcher actively sought to identify the team who provided care and to identify any pre-known barriers (for example how busy acute setting scn be, emergency scenarios).

# data[].attributes.body
1. Disclosure of sexual orientation

2. Heteronormative language, Communication and behaviour towards the non-biological parent

3. Homophobia and stigmatism (including religious teachings/ cultural philosophy)

4. desire for normality

Results presented in tables with disaggregated data showing age, employment, ethnicity and MLC / CLC care. Mental health also noted.

Qualitative text used to illustrate key themes that emerged above.

# data[].attributes.body
Identification of barriers in midwifery communication, education, personal philosophy and tolerance to lesbian parenting are indicative of need for

1. supplementary research

2. increased cultural competence

3. Facilitation of specifalised LGBTQ+ teams

# data[].attributes.body
These go way beyond the scope of midwifery practice to a cultural change which is out of step with "research" in my opinion and based on too narrow a sample to justify such sweeping statements.

1. Additional LGBTQ+ education should be provided at all ages from primary school to postgraduate.

2. Culturally competent communication (both verbal and documentation) is needed

3. an LGBTQ+ champion or specialised midwifery practitioners should be appointed.

4. Zero tolerance of discrimination should be institutional policy

5. Trust incentives should be implemented for LGBTQ diversity and equality.

# data[].attributes.body
Data analysed thematically using Lochmiller (2021).

Reoccurring topics open coded and clustered.

Potential key themes created

Transcription were re-reviewed following short break periods

Reflexivity used acknowledging personal biases and preconceptions.

Data was anonymised and stored in compliance with GDPR.

# data[].attributes.body
Sampling strategies clearly articulate the sampling process and criteria to justify the potential transferability of the findings. However sampling was limited by availability of academic resources and I question the reasoning behind some exclusion and inclusion critieria, as reasons are not clearly given.

Thick descriptions, describing the research context, participants and methods are given. This allows me to judge the relevance of findings to other settings. However more detail could have been given: what were the ages of the participants, were they first time parents, were they receiving MLU or CLC care?

# data[].attributes.body
Prolonged Engagement was not part of this trial. Time "in the field" was limited by covid restrictions. Interviews were conducted virtually. Nuanced insight into behaviours and beliefs was not sought - indeed the research explicitly mentions they sought to exclude discussion of "extraneous" information that wasn't directly related to the research question but which may have given a deeper insight into beliefs, values etc impacting on their interpretation of their maternity experience.

Reflexivity is practiced along with a sort of triangulation reflection where the author attepted to acknowledge and reflect on their personal beliefs and preconceptions throughout the research process and also discussed elements of the research - particularly around interpretation of the dataset with impartial academic tutors.

Triangulation: also used researcher response field notes completed during interview alongside the actual transcripts and discussions to try and ensure that themes were credible and reduce influence of bias on the dataset.

# data[].attributes.body
Methodological Documentation:

Each step of the research process is clearly documented and helps to ensure transparency allowing other to replicate the study or assess the dependability of the findings by following the procedures elsewhere and understanding the rationale behind decisions made.

Audit Trails were kept. A record of decisions made during the study including

Basic Member checking, Code-Recoding.

Peer Debriefing: Also covered in Credibility (reflexivity) the author did discuss the emerging themes with an impartial academic as part of a process to ensure they were not interpreting themes towards their own expectations or bias. The engagement with colleagues or experts to review interpretations and findings is intended to reduce researcher bias.

# data[].attributes.body
No attempt at confirmability were made that I can see in this research. The only mention of this is that pronouns were confirmed with all participants but that does not appear intrinsic to results.

Member Checking - involving participants in the verification process to ensure that viewpoints and experiences are accurately represented to strengthen the confirmability of the findings - ie increasing the validity of results.

Reflexive Journaling not undertaken

# data[].attributes.body
All research has limitations.

Research Design: In this research the single researcher approach influenced the design, pace and evolution of the study.

The research was also heavily influenced by social distancing measures at the time of research.

It was influenced by ethical approval.

It was influenced by the lack of availability of pre-exicsting literature.

Sampling: Women who didnt have social media were excluded from the study demonstrating a limitatio in recruitment.

Ther sample did not include anyone under 25, over 35 and had limited ethnic diversity.

Data Collection: Data was obtained virtually with implications for the quality of rapport and time constraints on the single researcher. This affects the richness of the available data. Researcher also noted that "Responses should be interpreted with caution as participants may only represent extreme positive and negative practice2 which brings into question what exploration was given to the middle ground and triangulation of data.