Disparities in the mental health of children from same-sex vs opposite-sex couples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveDisparities in mental health outcomes between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents remain underexplored in population-based studies. This study examines the risk of mental health-related acute care among these groups.MethodUsing Canadian Census data linked to longitudinal health records, we analyzed children aged 10–24 from 2016 to 2019. Coarsened exact matching ensured comparable groups, and survival analysis models assessed hazard ratios for mental health-related emergency department (ED) visits, with subgroup analyses by child’s sex, age group, rurality, and parental gender composition (i.e. male vs female same-sex parents).ResultsChildren of same-sex parents had a 1.52 times higher risk of mental health-related ED visits (95% CI: 1.05–2.20) compared to those of opposite-sex parents. Elevated risks were observed for male children, younger children aged 10–14, and urban residents. Children of female same-sex parents faced higher risks for anxiety and mood disorders compared to those of opposite-sex parents, while no significant differences were observed for children of male same-sex parents.ConclusionChildren of same-sex parents are at higher risk of mental health issues, likely linked to stigma, highlighting the need for targeted interventions and further research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".