SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Enduring hope and loss: qualitative evidence synthesis of LGBTQ+ experiences of perinatal loss.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Perinatal healthcare systems, services and research are shaped by cisheteronormative assumptions, i.e. that families involve one woman who carries a pregnancy and one man who is a non-carrying partner; furthermore, assuming that conception has usually resulted from sexual intercourse, with both parties providing gametes. These assumptions obscure and sometimes exacerbate LGBTQ+ people's experiences and needs. This evidence synthesis aimed to identify and bring together the experiences of LGBTQ+ people who have faced pregnancy or baby loss; collectively perinatal loss. Methods: A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted using systematic methods. Relevant databases were systematically searched using predefined search terms, and complimented by citation chaining. Eligibility was restricted to empirical qualitative studies published in English, unrestricted by participants' relationship to the loss (i.e. physically pregnant or not - sometimes respectively described as gestational/birthing or non-gestational/non-birthing parent), type of perinatal loss (e.g. miscarriage, stillbirth), time since loss, setting, publication date, or type of qualitative methodology. Study selection followed a multi-stage screening process. Thematic synthesis was used to analyse and interpret patterns of meaning across included studies. Results: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria, reported across 10 papers. All seven were conducted in the Global North (including North America, Australia, and Europe). Thematic synthesis generated one overarching theme - enduring hope and loss - which captured the layers of loss experienced by LGBTQ+ people. This included the complexity of loss, and the loss commonly not being felt as an isolated incident, but rather part of a longer process. The three connected themes were: 1. Investment, which included the effort of navigating cisheteronormative systems, frequently after investing time, finances and emotions in assisted conception. 2. Support in relation to loss, highlighting the challenges of accessing support while being marginalised, excluded, or feeling invisible and, at times, unsafe as an LGBTQ+ family. 3. Meaning-making, in the immediate experience of loss, the aftermath of loss and the care received, and the time beyond. Conclusion: Cisheteronormative systems and interactions have potential to amplify loss and contribute to feelings of disenfranchisement amongst LGBTQ+ people. Further research is needed to evaluate support provided, inclusive of implications for subsequent reproductive choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.