Investigating Differential Protective Effects of Marriage on Substance Use by Sexual Identity Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that marriage is protective against substance use. However, few studies have examined whether this protective effect differs for sexual minorities, a population at increased risk for substance use. Using data from four waves of the cross-sectional U.S. National Alcohol Survey (NAS; 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015), we investigated whether the protective effects of marriage varied by sexual identity. METHODS: Sex-stratified logistic regression models were used to examine independent and interactive effects of current marital status (being married vs. not) and sexual minority status (lesbian/gay/bisexual vs. heterosexual) on high-intensity drinking, alcohol use disorder, and marijuana use in the past year. RESULTS: Among both women and men, sexual minority status was generally associated with higher odds of these outcomes and marriage was consistently associated with lower odds. Differential effects of marriage by sexual identity with respect to marijuana use were found only among men; marriage was significantly associated with decreased odds of marijuana use among heterosexual men but increased odds among sexual minority men. CONCLUSIONS: Marriage may be less consistently protective against hazardous drinking and marijuana use among sexual minorities than heterosexuals. Findings underscore the importance of both quantitative and qualitative studies designed to better understand disparities in substance use across both sexual identity and relationship statuses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".