Cited by 136Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthReproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive System and Pregnancy

Experience of miscarriage: an interpretative phenomenological analysis

Open access
Meaney, S, Corcoran, P, Spillane, N, O'Donoghue, K·2017·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to explore the experiences of those who have experienced miscarriage, focusing on men's and women's accounts of miscarriage. Design: This was a qualitative study using a phenomenological framework. Following in-depth semistructured interviews, analysis was undertaken in order to identify superordinate themes relating to their experience of miscarriage. Setting: A large tertiary-level maternity hospital in Ireland. Participants: A purposive sample of 16 participants, comprising 10 women and 6 men, was recruited. Results: 6 superordinate themes in relation to the participant's experience of miscarriage were identified: (1) acknowledgement of miscarriage as a valid loss; (2) misperceptions of miscarriage; (3) the hospital environment, management of miscarriage; (4) support and coping; (5) reproductive history; and (6) implications for future pregnancies. Conclusions: One of the key findings illustrates a need for increased awareness in relation to miscarriage. The study also indicates that the experience of miscarriage has a considerable impact on men and women. This study highlights that a thorough investigation of the underlying causes of miscarriage and continuity of care in subsequent pregnancies are priorities for those who experience miscarriage. Consideration should be given to the manner in which women who have not experienced recurrent miscarriage but have other potential risk factors for miscarriage could be followed up in clinical practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011382

Cites

31 of 33 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many men explicitly reported a preference not to engage in formal counselling and/or support groups.

    “This was important, since many men explicitly reported a preference not to engage in formal counselling [78] and/or support groups [56, 61].”

    From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [78]

    The citation to this paper is attached to the support-groups portion of the sentence. In Findings > Support and coping (page unavailable), the paper says participants were hesitant about counselling but that most opted for support from family, friends and/or support groups instead. It does not report a preference to avoid support groups. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Other men in 10 studies reported less intense reactions, including stating that their partners experienced worse grief in comparison to them.

    “However, other men in 10 studies (some overlapping with the above 14 studies) also reported less intense reactions, including stating that their partners experienced worse grief in comparison to them [56, 61, 69, 71–75, 78, 79].”

    From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Findings section (‘Acknowledgement of miscarriage as a valid loss’; page not provided) says men felt they could not experience the loss in the same manner as their partners. But it also says they grieved, and the Discussion cautions that differences in expression may not reflect differences in emotional reaction. The paper does not establish that men felt less intense grief or said their partners’ grief was worse. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Men with a history of loss did not report different or increased levels of grief (nine qualitative studies).

    “In contrast, men with a history of loss in nine qualitative studies [46, 61, 62, 68, 71, 72, 78, 82, 83] did not report different or increased levels of grief.”

    From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Findings section, ‘Acknowledgement of miscarriage as a valid loss’ (page unavailable), quotes a man who had experienced two miscarriages describing his grief. The paper does not compare grief among men with and without a history of loss, so it does not support the claim that prior loss was associated with no different or increased grief. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Parents who experienced support of specialist bereavement care teams or follow-up telephone calls commented positively.

    “Three studies noted that providers who worked “extra hard” to provide both medical and practical information to men were valued [81], and parents who experienced the support of specialist bereavement care teams, or follow-up telephone calls from care providers, commented positively on this [68, 78].”

    From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [78]

    In Findings > Support and coping (page not provided), the paper says that both men and women under the care of a specialist bereavement team commented on the emotional support they received. Our copy does not report positive comments about follow-up telephone calls from care providers; the call described in that section was made by a participant to the clinic. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Men discussed widespread taboo, stigma, and silence surrounding miscarriage and/or stillbirth, which worsened their grief.

    “Across these, men discussed widespread taboo, stigma and silence surrounding miscarriage and/or stillbirth which worsened their grief.”

    From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Findings (Misperceptions of miscarriage) report that all participants described too little public discussion of miscarriage. The Discussion says men were less likely to discuss their miscarriage openly, and the Findings (Acknowledgement of miscarriage as a valid loss) describe men's grief and the importance of acknowledgement. The paper does not establish that taboo or stigma worsened men's grief, and it does not study stillbirth. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meaney, S., Corcoran, P., Spillane, N., & O'Donoghue, K.
Affiliations
University College Cork (IE)
Corresponding author
Meaney, S
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-03
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e011382
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2600339366
Cited by
136
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
Keywords
miscarriage, lived experience, grief, loss, reproductive history, continuity of care, recurrent pregnancy loss, miscarriage risk factors
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Grief, Humans, Ireland, Male, Parents, Pregnancy, Quality of Health Care, Social Support, Reproductive Health Services, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review