Providing Inclusive Midwifery Care for 2SLGBTQQIA+ People: Supporting Inclusion in Ontario's Midwifery Education Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Research on how midwives in North America are trained to provide inclusive care to Two Spirited, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, or Asexual (2SLGBTQQIA+) clients is limited. The objective of this study was to define 2SLGBTQQIA+ inclusive midwifery care in the Canadian context and to explore the experiences of graduates of Ontario's Midwifery Education Program (MEP) to determine how midwives are trained to provide inclusive care. METHODS: Ethics approval was obtained for this qualitative study to perform semistructured interviews with graduates from the MEP hosted by McMaster, Toronto Metropolitan, and Laurentian University. Eleven midwives were recruited and were required to be (1) graduates of Ontario's MEP, (2) registered midwives under the College of Midwives of Ontario or elsewhere, (3) currently practicing or on leave, and (4) self-identified advocates for 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals. RESULTS: When defining 2SLGBTQQIA+ inclusive care, midwives described the following principles: using inclusive language, changing the clinical environment, amending documents and websites, and tailoring care for each client. Participants recognized recent efforts by Ontario's MEP to provide 2SLGBTQQIA+ inclusive education while highlighting the need to expand 2SLGBTQQIA+ content across all courses, practicing inclusive care during placement, and ensuring an inclusive environment in the program. DISCUSSION: Midwives in this study helped conceptualize inclusive midwifery care for 2SLGBTQQIA+ clients and underlined remaining gaps in Ontario's MEP toward providing student midwives with this competency by graduation. This study helped to fill a gap in the literature on how Canadian midwives are trained to provide 2SLGBTQQIA+ inclusive care and generated recommendations for Ontario's MEP to support prelicensure education that trains inclusive midwives. Having demonstrated gaps in how birth workers are trained to provide 2SLGBTQQIA+ inclusive care, this study points to the need for other prelicensure health professional programs to evaluate their training and to support 2SLGBTQQIA+ inclusive practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".