Are alcohol‐related disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual youth decreasing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although sexual orientation-related alcohol use disparities are well established, researchers have not identified whether disparities are diminishing as societal attitudes towards lesbian/gay and bisexual (LGB) people become more accepting. We examined changes in four alcohol-related disparities between heterosexual and LGB youth from 1998 to 2013 by (1) estimating the prevalence of these behaviors; (2) estimating disparities in alcohol-related outcomes between heterosexual and LGB youth within each wave year; and (3) testing whether the degree of difference in alcohol-related disparities between heterosexual and LGB youth has changed. DESIGN: Logistic regression models and year × sexual orientation interactions with repeated, cross-sectional, provincially representative data. SETTING: British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Students (ages 12-19) from the 1998 (n = 22 858), 2003 (n = 29 323), 2008 (n = 25 254) and 2013 (n = 21 938) British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey (total n = 99 373, 48.7% male, mean age = 14.84). MEASUREMENTS: We modeled age-adjusted differences in life-time alcohol use, age of onset, past 30-day drinking and past 30-day heavy episodic drinking between heterosexual and three subgroups of sexual minority youth (i.e. mostly heterosexual, bisexual and lesbian/gay). FINDINGS: Generally, alcohol use declined for all youth, although less so among LGB youth [average adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.58 and aOR = 0.53 for heterosexual males and females and aOR = 0.71 and aOR = 0.57 for sexual minority males and females, respectively). Within-year comparisons demonstrated elevated rates of alcohol use among LGB compared with heterosexual youth for each of the four survey years, especially among females. Findings indicate few changes over time; however, results show an increase in risky alcohol use from 1998 to 2013 among mostly heterosexual (aOR = 1.58 for life-time alcohol use, aOR = 1.58 for 30-day alcohol use and aOR = 1.34 for 30-day heavy episodic drinking), and bisexual (aOR = 1.95 for life-time alcohol use) females. CONCLUSION: Despite the general decline in the prevalence of alcohol use among young people in Canada since 1998, lesbian/gay and bisexual youth in Canada continue to show elevated rates of alcohol use compared with heterosexual youth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".