4.7 Article

Mental Health of Transgender Youth: A Comparison of Assigned Female at Birth and Assigned Male at Birth Individuals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144710

关键词

gender dysphoria; gender incongruence; transgender; mental health; adolescence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess and compare the mental health of transgender youth by sex assigned at birth. The results showed that assigned male at birth (AMAB) adolescents were more likely to have internalizing problems, while assigned female at birth (AFAB) adolescents were more likely to have externalizing problems.
Gender dysphoric adolescents report a gender identity which is incongruent with their assigned sex at birth, whereby the experienced incongruence is accompanied by clinically relevant distress. The aim of the study was to assess and compare the mental health of transgender youth by assigned sex at birth. A total of n = 49 adolescents (n = 29 assigned females at birth, n = 20 assigned male at birth) aged 12 to 18 years with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria according to DSM-5 were included in the study. The adolescents underwent a psychological assessment in a child and adolescent psychiatry outpatient department prior to starting gender-affirming medical treatment, completing relevant mental health questionnaires. Although no differences were found in psychiatric disorders, more externalizing problems above the clinical threshold were reported by parents in assigned female at birth (AFAB) adolescents. On the other hand, internalizing problems, both in general and within the clinical range, were found to be more prevalent in assigned male at birth (AMAB) adolescents, as indicated by self-report. Our results suggest that a comprehensive assessment of mental health in gender dysphoric adolescents is crucial for understanding the diverse range of challenges they may face and tailoring appropriate interventions to address their specific needs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据