Supportive and Affirming Queer Perinatal Health Care: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Queer people may experience barriers to accessing safe and affirming perinatal care. Representative doula support may mitigate barriers to accessing care and improve outcomes. The objectives of this qualitative study were to understand priorities for key queer community stakeholders to address the needs of queer patients/families and to identify potential roles for doula support in improving care. Recruitment for this community-university partnership study was conducted using purposeful and snowball sampling. Interviews with key stakeholders in the field of perinatal health were conducted in summer and fall 2022. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. A total of 12 participants participated in an interview. Key themes include the challenges accessing and navigating affirming care, steps forward for improving perinatal experiences and the role of doulas. Findings suggest gaps in care persist for Queer patients/families, and appropriately trained and representative doula support may interrupt heteronormative bias in perinatal care to improve experiences and outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".