Online qualitative surveys—those surveys that prioritise qualitative questions and interpretivist values—have rich potential for researchers, particularly in new or emerging areas of public health. However, there is limited discussion about the practical development and methodological implications of such surveys, particularly for public health researchers. This poses challenges for researchers, funders, ethics committees, and peer reviewers in assessing the rigour and robustness of such research, and in deciding the appropriateness of the method for answering different research questions. Drawing and extending on the work of other researchers, as well as our own experiences of conducting online qualitative surveys with young people and adults, we describe the processes associated with developing and implementing online qualitative surveys and writing up online qualitative survey data. We provide practical examples and lessons learned about question development, the importance of rigorous piloting strategies, use of novel techniques to prompt detailed responses from participants, and decisions that are made about data preparation and interpretation. We consider reviewer comments, and some ethical considerations of this type of qualitative research for both participants and researchers. We provide a range of practical strategies to improve trustworthiness in decision-making and data interpretation—including the importance of using theory. Rigorous online qualitative surveys that are grounded in qualitative interpretivist values offer a range of unique benefits for public health researchers, knowledge users, and research participants.

Recurrent miscarriage affects 1-2% of women of reproductive age, depending on the definition used. A systematic review was conducted to identify, appraise and describe clinical practice guidelines (CPG) published since 2000 for the investigation, management, and/or follow-up of recurrent miscarriage within high-income countries. Six major databases, eight guideline repositories and the websites of 11 professional organizations were searched to identify potentially eligible studies. The quality of eligible CPG was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) Tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted to describe, compare and contrast the CPG and recommendations therein. Thirty-two CPG were included, from which 373 recommendations concerning first-trimester recurrent miscarriage were identified across four sub-categories: structure of care (42 recommendations, nine CPG), investigations (134 recommendations, 23 CPG), treatment (153 recommendations, 24 CPG), and counselling and supportive care (46 recommendations, nine CPG). Most CPG scored 'poor' on applicability (84%) and editorial independence (69%); and to a lesser extent stakeholder involvement (38%) and rigour of development (31%). Varying levels of consensus were found across CPG, with some conflicting recommendations. Greater efforts are required to improve the quality of evidence underpinning CPG, the rigour of their development and the inclusion of multi-disciplinary perspectives, including those with lived experience of recurrent miscarriage.

How can we improve recruitment to trials? In their recently published paper, Healy et al. outline the top 10 prioritised questions for trial recruitment research identified by the PRioRiTy study. The challenge now is for researchers to answer these questions; but how best can these be answered? In this commentary, we illustrate how qualitative research can be utilised to generate in-depth insight into trial recruitment issues, either as a stand-alone methodology, or through a mixed-methods approach. Consideration is given to how different forms of qualitative research can be used to address these priorities and to help researchers set out an agenda to optimise its value.

What are the subsequent reproductive outcomes (livebirths, miscarriages or other adverse pregnancy outcomes or no further pregnancy) of women with recurrent miscarriage (RM) attending a dedicated clinic? Of women with RM, 77% had a subsequent pregnancy, and among these pregnancies, the livebirth rate was 63%. RM affects ∼1–3% of women of reproductive age. RM has known associations with advanced maternal age, obesity, diabetes, inherited thrombophilias, thyroid dysfunction, endometriosis and parental balanced translocations. However, ∼ 50% of women or couples will be left without an explanation for their pregnancy loss, even after completing investigations. RM is also associated with secondary infertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth and perinatal death. We undertook a retrospective cohort study to identify subsequent pregnancy outcomes in women with RM, defined as three consecutive first-trimester miscarriages. Women attending the RM clinic at a tertiary university hospital in the Republic of Ireland over 12 years (2008–2020) with a confirmed diagnosis of primary or secondary first-trimester RM were eligible for inclusion. In total, 923 charts were identified for review against the eligibility criteria. Women with non-consecutive first-trimester miscarriages or ectopic pregnancy were excluded. Epidemiological and clinical information regarding medical history, investigation and management was gathered from paper and electronic medical records. Data were analysed using SPSS (Version 27). Associations between maternal characteristics and outcomes were explored using the χ² test, with significance set at P < 0.05. Multinomial regression analysis was performed using a stepwise approach. There were 748 women who were included; 332 (44%) had primary RM and 416 (56%) had secondary RM. The median age was 36 years (range 19–47). Foetal aneuploidy was the most common investigative finding (15%; n = 111/748); 60% had unexplained RM. In addition to supportive care, most women were prescribed aspirin (96%) and folic acid (75%). Of the 748 women, 573 had a subsequent pregnancy (77%) and 359 (48% of all women; 63% of pregnancies) had a livebirth, while 208 had a further pregnancy loss (28% of all women; 36% of pregnancies) and 6 were still pregnant at the end of the study. Women aged 35–39 years were more likely to have a livebirth than no further pregnancy (relative risk ratio (RRR): 2.29 (95% CI: 1.51–5.30)). Women aged 30–34 years were more likely to have a livebirth (RRR: 3.74 (95% CI: 1.80–7.79)) or a miscarriage (RRR: 2.32 (95% CI: 1.07–4.96)) than no further pregnancy. Smokers were less likely to have a livebirth (RRR: 0.37 (95% CI: 0.20–0.69)) or a miscarriage (RRR: 0.45 (95% CI: 0.22–0.90)) than no further pregnancy. Couples with an abnormal parental karyotype were less likely to have a miscarriage than no further pregnancy (RRR: 0.09 (95% CI: 0.01–0.79)). Including successive pregnancies conceived over the study period, the overall livebirth rate was 63% (n = 466/742), but this was reduced to 44% in women aged ≥40 years and 54% in women with infertility. This work covers 13 years; however, those included in the later years have a shorter follow-up time. Although electronic health records have improved data availability, data collection in this cohort remains hampered by the absence of a formal booking visit for women presenting with miscarriage and a national miscarriage database or register. Our findings are largely reassuring as most women with RM and hoping to conceive achieved a livebirth. In addition to older age, smoking and parental balanced translocations were associated with a reduced likelihood of further pregnancy. No investigation or treatment was associated with pregnancy outcome, reiterating the importance of the supportive aspects of care for women and their partners after RM and counselling regarding individual risk factors. This contributes to the limited international data on the investigative findings and treatment of women with RM. The high rate of prescribed medications merits greater scrutiny, in conjunction with other pregnancy outcomes, and reiterates the need for a national guideline on RM. L.A.L. is a PhD scholar funded through the Pregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork. M.H. and C.F. are Postdoctoral Researchers on a project funded by the Health Research Board Ireland [ILP-HSR-2019-011] and led by K.O.D., titled: ‘Study of the impact of dedicated recurrent miscarriage clinics in the Republic of Ireland’. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare. N/A.

Research ethics considerations foreground minimising harm to participants. Whilst increasing attention is being paid to researcher vulnerabilities, little has been written about transcriptionists, who can potentially experience emotional distress and vicarious trauma. In this article, we highlight ethical considerations when outsourcing audio for transcription as part of the RE:CURRENT (REcurrent miscarriage: evaluating CURRENT services) Project. Through qualitative interviews, we explored the perspectives of those involved in the management/delivery of services, and women and men who experienced recurrent miscarriage ( N = 62). We put distress protocols in place for participants, researchers and the transcriptionist, and adopted a research team approach with the professional transcriber. The transcriptionist highlighted the isolated nature of the role; how researchers often did not brief her when commissioning work, and how the personal impacts of this work were rarely considered. Researchers and ethics committees should consider ethical responsibilities to ‘do no harm’ when it comes to transcriptionist wellbeing.