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.

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".

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?

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.

1. supplementary research

2. increased cultural competence

3. Facilitation of specifalised LGBTQ+ teams

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.