This summer, I am working as a research assistant on the Bridges Study. The BRIDGES Study is a pilot feasibility study testing a patient-directed, web-based intervention aimed at reducing reproductive coercion (RC) and improving outcomes in family planning care. The intervention is designed to be used in clinical settings, empowering patients with knowledge and strategies to protect their reproductive autonomy. The study investigates how acceptable and useful this intervention is for patients, and whether it can be practically implemented in healthcare contexts.
My primary responsibility is transcribing and de-identifying qualitative interviews with participants who received the intervention. These interviews explore individuals’ personal experiences with reproductive coercion and their reactions to the BRIDGES platform. Although this task may seem technical or routine, it is far from mechanical. It demands deep attentiveness to how people tell their stories—not just through words, but also through pauses, emotional tone, and even silence. I’ve learned to be sensitive to moments when a speaker stops abruptly or hesitates, recognizing that those gaps often hold emotional weight or signal trauma.
Also, It’s not just replacing names with pseudonyms; it involves making judgment calls about what counts as identifying or potentially triggering information. For example, a city name, a reference to a local clinic, or a partner’s nickname can all compromise anonymity or safety if left untouched. My job is to remove or replace those details while preserving the authenticity of participants’ voices. What details could make someone recognizable? A city name? A unique phrase? Even a partner’s nickname? My job is to protect their privacy without erasing their voice. That means making judgment calls constantly—and always erring on the side of care.
This research matters because reproductive coercion is often invisible—missed in rushed clinic visits or brushed aside in policy debates. For individuals, this study could help patients feel seen and equipped with strategies to protect their autonomy. For providers and clinics, it may offer new tools to spot warning signs and respond more effectively. At a systems level, our findings could support the case for integrating trauma-informed, patient-centered practices into reproductive healthcare more broadly.
Ethics are woven into every step of this process. The goal isn’t just to protect data—it’s to protect people. Many participants have lived through coercion, trauma, and systemic neglect. Ensuring their confidentiality and minimizing re-traumatization is central to the integrity of this work. Our protocols emphasize psychological safety, including the use of upset screeners, participant control over recordings, and crisis referral pathways. As someone entrusted with intimate parts of others’ lives, I’m learning how ethical research is not just about rules—it’s about responsibility and care.
Through this role, I’m gaining a deeper appreciation for the power of qualitative research to center marginalized voices and generate knowledge that can shape more just, responsive healthcare systems.
Siran Zhang