Fertility services for gay men: A website content analysis of US fertility clinics and sperm banks.

Background Objectives Materials and Methods Results Discussion and Conclusion Fertility preservation and subsequent third‐party reproduction represents a principal pathway by which gay and bisexual cisgender men may have biologically related children. Previous studies of a similar design have commented on the availability of fertility services for sexually and gender diverse communities, but none have investigated access to the aforementioned services for this specific population.To assess the availability of fertility preservation and third‐party reproduction services for gay and bisexual cisgender men across US fertility clinics and sperm banks.A content analysis was performed on a sample of fertility clinic and sperm bank websites compiled from three online sources. Sample construction and analysis were completed in 2023. Each website was systematically examined by two separate coders with a third coder deciding any discrepancies. Website coding followed a pre‐constructed standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify statistically significant differences.A total of 675 clinic and sperm bank websites (136 academic and 539 private) were analyzed. Five hundred and two (74.4%) offered third‐party reproduction and 326 (48.3%) offered fertility preservation for gay and bisexual cisgender men. Furthermore, 248 websites (36.7%) featured some form of disqualifying language either directly communicating or implying exclusion of gay and bisexual cisgender men from these services. Private facilities were more likely to offer third‐party reproduction (odds ratio [OR] = 1.88, <italic>p</italic> < 0.01) but less likely to offer fertility preservation (OR = 0.68, <italic>p</italic> < 0.05) compared with academic affiliated facilities. Lastly, states in the highest Human Rights Campaign Equality Index tier were significantly more likely to offer third‐party reproduction (OR = 2.50, <italic>p</italic> < 0.01) than the lowest tier.These findings demonstrate great variability in access to fertility preservation and third‐party reproduction services. Geography and ambiguity in facility‐specific policies represent persistent barriers to family building for gay and bisexual cisgender men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]