Intersectional disparities in mental healthcare utilization by sex and race/ethnicity among US adults: An NHANES study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental healthcare utilization in the US remains low, with persistent disparities observed across population groups. However, little is known about how sex and race/ethnicity jointly shape access to care. Intersectionality theory highlights the need to examine these dimensions together, as their combined influence may produce unique disadvantages not captured in single-axis analyses. This study utilized data from the 2009-2018 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The relative differences (prevalence ratios) of mental healthcare utilization across intersecting sex and racial/ethnic groups were estimated using design-based log-binomial models. The absolute measure (prevalence differences) across these intersectional groups were obtained using linear probability regression models. Stratified analyses were conducted to examine how socioeconomic and need-related factors modified disparities. Overall, 9.1% of adults reported accessing mental health services in the preceding year. Marked disparities were observed across the intersectional groups. Hispanic males had the lowest utilization rates compared to Non-Hispanic (NH) White males, with an adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) of 0.59 [95% CI: 0.47-0.73]. Among females, all minority racial/ethnic groups reported lower utilization compared with NH White females with aPRs ranging from 0.73 to 0.81. Within racial/ethnic groups, women generally accessed care more than men, though the magnitude of sex differences varied. Stratified analyses showed that disparities were magnified among those without insurance and attenuated at higher income levels. These results show that sex and race/ethnicity jointly shape patterns of mental healthcare utilization in the United States, producing compounded disadvantages for specific groups such as Hispanic men. Stratified analyses suggest that socio-economic status may modify these disparities, pointing to the role played by systemic inequities. These findings underscore the importance of intersectional approaches in population mental health research and policy. Future research should consider additional intersecting identities including sexual orientation and disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".