Self-rated health and mental health of lone fathers compared with lone mothers and partnered fathers: a population-based cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lone parenthood is associated with poorer health; however, the vast majority of previous studies have examined lone mothers and only a few have focused on lone fathers. We aimed to examine the self-rated health and mental health status among a large population-based cross-sectional sample of Canadian lone fathers compared with both partnered fathers and lone mothers. METHODS: We investigated differences in self-rated health and mental health among 1058 lone fathers compared with 20 692 partnered fathers and 5725 lone mothers using the Ontario component of the Canadian Community Health Survey (2001-2013). Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the odds of poor/fair self-rated health and mental health between the study groups while adjusting for a comprehensive list of sociodemographic factors, stressors and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Lone fathers and lone mothers showed similar prevalence of poor/fair self-rated health (11.6% and 12.5%, respectively) and mental health (6.2% and 8.4%, respectively); the odds were similar even after multivariable adjustment. Lone fathers showed higher odds of poor/fair self-rated health (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.17) and mental health (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.46) than partnered fathers after adjustment for sociodemographic factors; however, these differences were no longer significant after accounting for stressors, including low income and unemployment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based study, lone fathers had worse self-rated health and mental health than partnered fathers and similarly poor self-rated health and mental health as lone mothers. Interventions, supports and social policies designed for single parents should also recognise the needs of lone fathers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".