No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundHistorically, transitioning gender was seen as precluding transgender people from having children in the future. However, there are now increased reproductive options available to transgender people, with such options also available to non-binary people (i.e., people whose gender is not exclusively male or female). These options include undertaking fertility preservation if genetic children may be desired in the future. Despite these increased options, there is still only a limited amount of international research exploring the views of transgender and non-binary people on fertility preservation.MethodsThis mixed-methods study draws on a convenience sample of Australian transgender and non-binary adults, focused on their decision making about fertility preservation. The questionnaire was constructed by the authors, drawing on previous research. Participants were recruited via Australian organisations and groups made up of and/or working with people who are transgender or non-binary. The questionnaire was open from January–February 2018. The final sample included 409 participants. Statistical analyses were conducted on the closed-ended responses. Open-ended responses were analysed via a conventional content analysis.ResultsDecisions about fertility preservation were influenced by views on the importance of genetic relatedness, willingness to delay transition, economic resources, already having children or desiring children in the future, and the views of significant others. Advice or counselling prior to decision making was received only by a minority of participants. Very few participants (7%) had undertaken fertility preservation, although 95% said that fertility preservation should be offered to all transgender and non-binary people. Participants who viewed genetic relatedness as important were more likely to have undertaken fertility preservation.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that fertility preservation should be made available as an option to all transgender or non-binary people prior to undertaking treatment which may impact on fertility. However, it should also be recognised that not all people who are transgender or non-binary will want to undertake fertility preservation, and that not all people may be able to afford to.

No abstract

Purpose: Psychiatric Mother-Baby Units (MBUs) are currently viewed as best practice, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, for improving outcomes for mothers and babies when the former are experiencing severe forms of mental illness. A growing number of publications have examined MBUs, but to date there has not been a comprehensive review of these studies. As such, the systematic review reported in this paper sought to address this gap. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for peer-reviewed research and grey literature published in English between 2000 and 2015. A final sample of 44 publications were identified that reported on empirical findings with regard to MBUs. Three quarters of the studies focused on individual MBUs and most studies were quantitative. Results: A thematic analysis of the studies identified three major themes: (1) admissions data, (2) outcomes for mothers, and (3) programs and interventions. The analysis also identified four secondary themes: (i) follow up after discharge; (ii) separation of mothers and babies after discharge; (iii) client satisfaction with MBUs; and (iv) partners of women admitted to MBUs. Conclusions: The findings of the review highlight gaps in knowledge about MBUs and provide suggestions for future research.