Feasibility of a Community‐Developed Survey Measuring Experiences of Pregnancy Care for <scp>LGBTQ2S</scp>+ Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite increased recognition of and support for family building among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, Two-Spirit, and other sexual and gender minoritized (LGBTQ2S+) populations, there is still little evidence describing the experiences of pregnancy care within these populations in quantifiable ways. This paper describes our pilot study process and the feasibility of implementing a community-developed survey measuring respectful pregnancy care within LGBTQ2S+ communities. METHODS: Using a participatory action research approach, a Community Steering Council developed and piloted the Birth Includes Us survey. To assess the feasibility of the survey, recruitment was assessed through how participants heard about the study, and enrollment and survey completion were tracked in the REDCap survey platform. We used descriptive statistics to report the demographics of the pilot sample. RESULTS: Recruitment through social media, predominantly Facebook, was an effective route to reach the target population, accounting for over 60% of the sample. Of the 404 eligible participants who opened the survey, 91% completed the survey. The pilot study sample represented 41/50 states in the USA and 5/13 provinces and territories across Canada. While only 17% of the sample were members of racially minoritized communities, there was wide representation across genders and sexualities. CONCLUSION: The findings of this feasibility pilot study will inform the implementation of the Birth Includes Us survey to ensure the recruitment, enrollment, and retention of diverse participants. Lessons learned from this process will also support researchers in developing mitigating strategies to minimize the harm incurred during the process of LGBTQ2S+ family building.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".