Cited by 31LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyReproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive Health and Technologies

Minority stress theory applied to conception, pregnancy, and pregnancy loss: A qualitative study examining LGBTQ+ people’s experiences

Open access
Lacombe-Duncan, Ashley, Andalibi, Nazanin, Roosevelt, Lee, Weinstein-Levey, Emma·2022·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (trans), queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) people desire to conceive children. Yet, LGBTQ+ peoples' experiences are scant in reproductive health literature, particularly around pregnancy loss-a stigmatized and distressing pregnancy outcome. Informed by minority stress theory, this qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of multi-level stigma and resilience among LGBTQ+ people in the context of conception, pregnancy, and loss. Seventeen semi-structured individual interviews (25-70 minutes) were conducted (2019) with a purposive sample of LGBTQ+ people in the United States (U.S.) who had experienced pregnancy loss (n = 14) or in an intimate partnership in which a pregnancy was lost (n = 3) in the last two years. Transcribed interviews were analyzed thematically. Participants described the profound sadness of pregnancy loss due to unique challenges of LGBTQ+ conception. Multiple types of stigma manifested at intrapersonal (e.g., anticipated sexual stigma upon disclosure), interpersonal (e.g., unsolicited advice about conception decisions), and structural levels (e.g., differential requirements to access conception compared to heterosexual/cisgender couples). Resilience was also seen individually (e.g., purposeful disclosure of conception, pregnancy, and loss), relationally (e.g., connecting with other LGBTQ+ community members), and collectively (e.g., creating/engaging in LGBTQ+-specific conception, pregnancy, and loss online spaces). LGBTQ+ people experience minority stressors of multi-level stigmatization throughout the pregnancy process, which limits their access to social support after experiencing pregnancy loss. However, individual, relational, and collective resilience strategies abound in response. Thus, minority stress theory can also be applied to recognize strengths-based and affirming approaches to reproductive healthcare for LGBTQ+ people.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0271945

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 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?

  • People who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community may experience different levels of stigma than heterosexual couples after a stillbirth.

    “Similarly, people who identify as part of the LQGTQ+ community may experience different levels of stigma than heterosexual couples after a stillbirth (40).”

    From Parent hospital experiences following stillbirth (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Results section reports stigma experienced by LGBTQ+ participants during conception, pregnancy, and pregnancy loss, including fears that others would judge a loss because of their LGBTQ+ identity. It also describes different expectations for LGBTQ+ and heterosexual people, but the cited passages do not establish a difference in stigma specifically after stillbirth. The Introduction discusses stillbirth stigma generally, not a comparison between LGBTQ+ people and heterosexual couples. (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

2 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [22]Craven C, Peel E. Queering reproductive loss: Exploring grief and memorialization. 2016. In Lind E. R. M. & Deveau A. (Eds.) Interrogating Pregnancy Loss: Feminist writings on abortion, miscarriage and stillbirth. (pp. 225– 245) Bradford, Ontario: Demeter Press.
  2. [37]Rank N. Barriers for access to assisted reproductive technologies by lesbian women: The search for parity within the healthcare system. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2010; 10: 115.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lacombe-Duncan, A., Andalibi, N., Roosevelt, L., & Weinstein-Levey, E.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2022-07-26
Volume
17
Issue
7
Pages
e0271945
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4288035168
Cited by
31
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
MCubed, University of Michigan
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
minority stress theory, LGBTQ+ people, miscarriage, conception, stigma, resilience, social support, disclosure, access to reproductive health services, affirming care, online support groups
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Sexual and Gender Minorities, Bisexuality, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, United States, Homosexuality, Female, Transgender Persons

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