Attitudes of Midwives Towards Lesbians: Results From a Systematic Review of Literature on Midwives’ Attitudes Towards Sexual and Gender Minority People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwives are positioned to play a crucial role in the health experiences of sexual and gender minoritypeople, who often avoid accessing care due to previous or anticipated negative health encounters. Canadianprovincial, territorial, and national regulatory entities hold midwives accountable to the provision of inclusiveand safe midwifery care to all. A broad, systematic search of literature examining midwives’ attitudes towardssexual and gender minority people and published from 2005 to 2020 included MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO,CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Sexual Diversity Studies, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsychLIT, andCochrane Library. English-language studies that were relevant to midwives’ attitudes towards sexual andgender minorities were eligible for inclusion. Of 623 articles retrieved, five primary studies met inclusioncriteria but examined midwives’ attitudes exclusively towards lesbians. Positive and caring midwives’attitudes contributed to creating a safe and supportive space for lesbians, even if the midwives didn’t havespecific training or education regarding how to care for them. Midwives’ negative attitudes contributed tolesbians’ experiences of homophobia and heterosexism. Further research on midwives’ attitudes towardsall sexual and gender minorities is needed, especially in the Canadian context, demonstrated by theimportance midwives’ attitudes have in shaping the experiences of lesbians in midwifery care. RÉSUMÉLes sages-femmes sont placées pour jouer un rôle crucial dans les expériences des personnes desminorités sexuelles et de genre (MSG) avec le système de santé. Ces individus évitent souvent d’avoir accèsaux soins à cause de rencontres négatives antérieures ou anticipées. Au Canada, les entités de réglementationprovinciales, territoriales et nationales tiennent les sages-femmes responsables de la prestation de soinsinclusifs et sûrs à tout le monde. Les autrices ont procédé à une vaste recherche systématique de la littératuresur les attitudes des sages-femmes envers les MSG. Elles se sont intéressées aux études publiées entre2005 et 2020 et répertoriées dans MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, SexualDiversity Studies, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsychLit et Cochrane. Les études en anglais qui étaienten rapport avec les attitudes des sages-femmes envers les SGM étaient admissibles à l’inclusion. Parmi les623 articles extraits, cinq recherches originales respectaient les critères d’inclusion, mais n’examinaientque les attitudes des sages-femmes envers les lesbiennes. Des attitudes positives et bienveillantes ontcontribué à la création d’un espace sûr et d’un grand soutien pour les lesbiennes, même si les sagesfemmesne possédaient pas une formation ou n’avaient pas suivi d’études portant spécifiquement sur laprestation de soins à ces personnes. À cause de l’attitude négative de sages-femmes, des lesbiennes ontconnu des expériences homophobes et hétérosexistes. Des recherches plus poussées sur les attitudes dessages-femmes envers toutes les minorités sexuelles et de genre sont nécessaires, en particulier dans lecontexte canadien. Elles le sont en raison de l’importance des attitudes des sages-femmes sur l’expériencedes soins offerts par celles-ci aux lesbiennes.
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 | 0.023 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".