Cross-sectional study reveals obstacles in reproductive planning and breastfeeding awareness among LGBTQIA+ individuals, indicating a need for improved healthcare support.
Introduction Parenthood among LGBTQIA+ individuals is marked by social, legal, and institutional invisibility. Despite recognition of the benefits of human milk feeding, research on its feasibility among LGBTQIA+ couples, including lactation induction, cross-nursing, and legal rights, is scarce. The aims of this study was to describe perceptions, challenges, and knowledge among the LGBTQIA+ population regarding parenthood, reproduction, breastfeeding, and parental rights, as well as to assess how these topics are addressed in healthcare services. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire administered to LGBTQIA+ individuals residing in Brazil, recruited via Respondent Driven Sampling. Only fully completed responses were included. Data are presented narratively and as absolute and relative frequencies. Results A total of 99 respondents were included. Most (83.8%) did not have children but expressed a desire for parenthood through assisted reproduction (39.4%), adoption (37.4%), or natural pregnancy (22.2%). Although 58.6% considered assisted reproduction accessible, 33.3% reported difficulties. In healthcare settings, 63.6% had never been asked about reproductive desires, although 80.8% viewed this as essential. Among individuals on the female spectrum, 54.5% expressed a desire for or experience with breastfeeding. While knowledge of its benefits was high, gaps remained regarding its role in preventing chronic diseases and allergies. Approximately half were unaware of legal rights to parental leave for non-gestational mothers and same-sex couples. Conclusion Despite a strong desire for parenthood, barriers remain in access to information, healthcare, and legal rights. Although breastfeeding benefits are recognized, significant gaps persist in awareness of parental rights. Financing No conflict.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agostinho et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: