Teen Girls' Suicide Risk Is Rising. Sexual Identity Stress May Be a Factor
This article was originally published in The Conversation.
The alarming national rise in suicidal thoughts and behaviors among teenage girls has made headlines recently. Experts point to social media, cyberbullying and COVID-19 as potential new sources of stress for teenagers.
However, a well-known source of stress that now affects more teenagers compared with a decade ago has been overlooked in explanations for this increase – stress related to sexual identity.
As scholars focused on education policy, we conducted research showing that the increase in suicidal thoughts and behaviors corresponds with a dramatic rise in the number of female high school students who identify as LGBQ – lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
While some LGBQ youth are growing up in supportive environments, our findings suggest that an increasing number may be experiencing a double bind – a communication dilemma in which a person receives two or more mutually conflicting messages.
Many LGBQ youth may believe it's safe to 'come out' due to greater access to information and the increased visibility of LGBQ people in U.S. society. But coming out earlier in life could expose them to discrimination and social stress in their schools, families and communities.
This stress related to sexual orientation can contribute to a greater prevalence of mental health concerns, including suicide.
We analyzed national data from over 44,000 U.S. high school students who took the Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021. We did this to understand these parallel national trends of rising suicide risk and rising LGBQ identification among teens.
Between 2015 and 2021, the percentage of high school girls identifying as LGBQ jumped from 15% to 34%. During this same period, all females who reported they thought about suicide increased from 23% to 29%. Creating a plan to commit suicide rose from 19% to 23%.
But looking at the data more closely reveals something crucial: Girls who identified as LGBQ consistently reported much higher rates of thinking about, planning and attempting suicide.
In 2021, about 48% of LGBQ females considered suicide, compared with roughly 20% of heterosexual females. When we accounted for this difference statistically, we found the overall rise in female suicidal thoughts and behaviors were explained by more students identifying as LGBQ.
Meanwhile, the percentage of male students identifying as LGBQ increased only slightly, from 6% in 2015 to 9% in 2021, with similar smaller changes in suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
Related
The increase in LGBQ identification among more female students in the past decade likely indicates greater access to information and social acceptance. It may also reflect the greater visibility of LGBQ people, including in popular media and leadership roles, which may help young people better understand and label their own identity.
Today's teenagers, regardless of sexual orientation, have more language and representation to help them make sense of their experiences than previous generations did. Some teens have supportive parents and attend schools that are supportive of their sexual orientation.
However, identifying as LGBQ may still come with significant challenges for many youth.
Research has consistently shown that LGBQ youth face unique stressors. They include discrimination, rejection by family members and friends and bullying and harassment.
Studies incorporating several generations of LGBQ people over the past 50 years find that, despite more societal acceptance, LGBTQ+ people born in the 1990s reported stressors at least as high as older generations born in the 1950s-80s. And younger generations reported the highest rate of suicide attempts.
Our findings highlight a critical point. The rising rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors among all teenage girls cannot be understood in isolation from their social context and identities. While more young people feel able to openly identify as LGBQ, many still face substantial challenges that can affect their mental health.
We believe this understanding has important implications for how we address the crisis. Simply implementing general suicide prevention programs may not be enough. Experts may need to craft targeted support that addresses the specific challenges and pressures faced by LGBQ youth.
Related
Schools play a crucial role in supporting student well-being.
However, states such as Indiana, Florida and Iowa have recently restricted resources and support for LGBQ and trans students.
Since 2021, legislators in at least 24 states have attempted to pass similar laws.
Other states, such as Montana, Tennessee and Arizona, don't outright ban this curriculum. But they severely restrict how educators can discuss sexual orientation and gender identity by adding additional burdens on educators, including parental notification requirements.
The Trump Administration, meanwhile, has started to roll back earlier federal efforts to protect LGBQ and trans students and recently deleted the Youth Risk Behavior Survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website.
Our research suggests this approach could be dangerous.
If we want to address rising suicidal thoughts and behaviors among teenage girls, we need to understand and support LGBQ youth better.
Rather than reducing support, schools, parents and youth advocates could maintain and expand their resources to support LGBQ youth. This includes efforts to create safe and affirming school environments, and training staff and teachers to support LGBQ students effectively.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Chronic Absenteeism Is a Vital Sign for Kids' Health. New Framework Seeks a Cure
When we worked in clinics caring for families and children, we routinely measured vital signs like blood pressure and heart rate and growth metrics like height and weight. But one of the most important health indicators remained out of reach: whether the kids were regularly showing up in school. School attendance is critical for success in the classroom, and success in school is core to health across a lifespan. Children who attend school regularly are far more likely to achieve academically and graduate from high school than those who are chronically absent. In turn, high school graduation leads to better health outcomes, and students who graduate are more likely to have fewer chronic illnesses and fewer injuries, and live longer lives, than those who do not. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Yet today, more than 1 in 4 American students is chronically absent, defined as missing more than 10% of school days. In some districts, that proportion is closer to 1 in 2. The COVID pandemic widened and deepened a longstanding problem, and now, the obstacles that prevent children from coming to school — chronic illness, disengagement in the classroom and unmet social needs — are wide-ranging. While many teachers and principals have worked tirelessly to get students back into the classroom, chronic absence has become a problem too big for educators or schools to solve alone. Related A new public health framework, developed by education and public health experts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Kaiser Permanente and Attendance Works, offers a comprehensive, community-driven approach with three core elements: data, partnerships and prevention. First, school attendance data should be tracked and analyzed on a regular basis by district-level teams of educators, epidemiologists and clinicians who can interpret patterns and target solutions. Key questions include: When during the academic year does attendance dip? At what age does it start to falter? Which neighborhoods are most affected? Public health departments can include chronic absence in their community health needs assessments. Sharing school attendance data securely with health providers can help identify children with particular conditions, like asthma, who are missing school and require extra attention. In the District of Columbia, for example, pediatricians — with the consent of parents — receive regular reports about which children in their practices are on track to become chronically absent. They then can talk to families about what's happening. If children are missing school for health reasons, more intensive medical treatment may be needed. If the problem is disengagement in the classroom, clinicians can help assess whether there are additional educational needs. If there are social factors, such as inadequate child care or housing, clinicians can work with social workers in schools or community services to find resources to assist families. Related Data alone is not enough; partnerships are essential. Beyond health care providers, community organizations, afterschool programs and religious institutions all have a role to play in supporting families in areas with low attendance rates. Such broad coalitions have a track record of success. For example, the Cincinnati All Children Thrive Learning Network is a citywide collaborative anchored by the Cincinnati Children's Hospital and the public school system. The collaboration reviews education and health data and uses it to inform targeted action in the clinic and classroom; for example promoting access to primary care. The results include increased improved third-grade reading scores and reduced pediatric hospitalizations. The third pillar is prevention. It can be easy to see troubling attendance patterns as simply an issue with a truant student, a problem family or a bad school. But punitive approaches are less likely to work than efforts that listen to parents, address their needs and anticipate future challenges. Using data and evidence to guide action, coalitions can take such steps as providing safer transportation routes to school by improving sidewalk safety, creating protected bike lanes, installing flashing lights on crosswalks and offering better public transportation options; adding services to afterschool programs; and expanding school-based mental health support. Communities can also set a widespread expectation that all kids must go to school every day. Encouraging the development of such norms is difficult, but doing so was at the core of other successful public health strategies, like smoking cessation and traffic safety. Related Not every approach will succeed. To sustain progress, it is important to document, evaluate and share what works and why. Research-practice partnerships such as the Catamount Community Schools Collaborative build long-term collaborations among researchers, health practitioners and representatives from districts and state agencies to quickly assess the implementation and results of innovative programs. In San Francisco, youth are trained as researchers to help in such efforts. Most fundamentally, this framework's approach to chronic absence means keeping focus on a measurable outcome and innovating with solutions until every child has the best chance of success, both in and out of the classroom. Like heart rate and blood pressure, school attendance is a vital sign for health. Like weight and height, it is fundamental to child development. Now is the time to prioritize reducing chronic absence to support the long-term health of children.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: How Much More Positive Head Start Evidence Do We Need to Save It?
The Trump administration's first four months have been rough on U.S. children. They certainly don't deserve the punishment. From polarized and destabilizing politics to a global pandemic, increasing environmental pressures from climate change (and more), this cohort of children is coming of age in a particularly difficult moment. And yet, we have reached what is perhaps a zenith in Trump-era politics of disinvesting in children and families. The administration's response to America's youth crisis has been stunningly consistent: again and again, it has balanced occasional, vague promises to do something constructive to address child care costs or infertility challenges on the one hand with real and stunningly concrete attacks on children's well-being on the other. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Perhaps the most direct and comprehensive assault on children is coming through the administration's war on Head Start. At $12.3 billion last year, it's the federal government's largest-single investment in early learning, and it serves almost 800,000 children and families per year. Over its 60 years, Head Start has provided high-quality early learning as well as connecting around 40 million children and their families to comprehensive support services like health and dental care, nutrition and housing assistance. During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump echoed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 playbook in calling for Head Start's elimination. This was hardly novel: though Head Start has long enjoyed bipartisan support, a subset of conservative researchers, activists and politicians have spent decades attacking the program. While the administration's chaotic first 100 days decimated portions of the federal government supporting health and well-being, its attacks on Head Start have been uniquely unpredictable. In January, as Elon Musk and his underlings at the Department of Government Efficiency hacked away at the federal civil service, Head Start providers across the country reported that they were unable to access their normally scheduled federal payments. This posed a particular challenge for Head Start center directors navigating the tight margins that define the early education market; hundreds of early care and learning centers warned that they were at risk of closure. Related Later in the spring, the administration abruptly pulled funding from regional Head Start centers that offer resources, support and oversight for Head Start providers. Several weeks ago, it appeared that the administration was preparing to act more decisively to abandon U.S. kids and families who depend on Head Start. On April 17, the Associated Press reported on leaked documents indicating that the Trump administration would erase Head Start funding in its forthcoming budget proposal. Once this hit the news, Head Start supporters mobilized to save the program, and the administration reversed course. While it appears that the administration isn't (yet) ready to deliver on this promised assault on children's well-being, it's worth reminding ourselves just what a stunning mistake it would be to reduce this particular investment in U.S. kids and families. Related Head Start has been studied many times, and the results are broadly positive. Research on it — and other early education programs — finds a relatively consistent pattern: Early education programs are reliably good for families and at preparing kids for kindergarten There's some waning of positive academic impacts as kids go through K-12 But the long-term impacts of early ed investments are generally positive. First, Head Start appears to be particularly effective at helping children from historically marginalized communities. Perhaps most importantly in the present political context, early education programs tend to promote better child development outcomes that create cost savings for school budgets. This mostly results from pre-K programs like Head Start reducing the likelihood that children will later require special education services or need to repeat a grade. For instance, economist Tim Bartik notes that studies show possible special education cost-savings of '23 to 86 percent.' Meanwhile, if a child repeats second (or any) grade, the public pays an additional year of per-pupil funding, and it also delays their entry into the workforce. As such, pre-K's ability to lower grade retention and keep students on track for college and career is a particularly efficient return on early education investments. Finally, early education programs like Head Start are a boon for working families because they help parents get back to work sooner after having a child. Most encouraging of all, Head Start appears to create some long-term positive effects. In 2022, researchers at the University of Notre Dame and Texas A&M found that the children of Head Start participants garnered benefits like higher high school graduation and college attainment rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy and reduced rates of interaction with the criminal justice system. For instance, critics often point to the federal Head Start Impact Study, which gathered data on programs in the early 2000s. It largely found that Head Start had positive initial effects on children's development, but that these effects 'faded out' as kids worked their way into the K–12 education system. But problems with the study's data prompted a field reassessment of its findings in the 2010s, with most researchers concluding that it meaningfully underestimated Head Start's benefits to children. This begs some critical questions about how the public should measure 'success' for Head Start. Begin here: nearly every study of nearly every early education investment shows that these programs are effective at getting kids ready for K–12 schooling. Put simply, pre-K appears to be good at getting kids 'pre'-pared for K(indergarten). Related The trouble is, political rhetoric about early education investments has sometimes presented them as an invulnerable 'inoculation' against all challenges that children may face later in life. This is the wrong way to think about whether early education investments 'work,' because it sets an impossible bar for success. Head Start — or pre-K programs more generally — cannot wholly blunt poverty, poor health or the impacts of low-quality K–12 classrooms. Indeed, even less rosy findings, like those in a recent study of Tennessee's public pre-K program, indicate a positive path forward for public early education investments. Initial studies of the program garnered headlines. While Tennessee pre-K attendees were generally more ready for kindergarten than their peers who did not attend the program, pre-K attendees scored worse on a range of metrics by the end of elementary school. This is concerning! But a more recent analysis of Tennessee's data found that pre-K's benefits were 'most likely to persist until 3rd grade among those students who went on to attend high quality schooling environments and were taught by highly effective teachers.' That is, Tennessee's pre-K programs succeeded at preparing children for kindergarten, and kids who went from those programs into higher-quality elementary classrooms continued to do better. In other words, if Head Start and other pre-K programs are measured as a one-time public investment that will solve all systemic inequities in American schools and society, they will inevitably appear to fail. But if they are measured against their ability to prepare children for elementary schools, it is clear that they are a success. Furthermore, this fairer definition of Head Start's effectiveness would allow policymakers to focus their attention on the necessary work of investing and improving K–12 schools so that they bolster children and families beyond the early years.
Tom's Guide
4 days ago
- Tom's Guide
What is blue light and can it really ruin your sleep? We asked the experts
I'll be the first to admit, I spend more time than I'd like scrolling in the evening. I do my best to follow a relaxing screen-free nighttime routine, but some nights the screentime gets one over me. Luckily, I sleep on one of this year's top-rated mattresses and get plenty of fresh air and movement during the day, so this evening light exposure doesn't completely ruin my sleep. However, I'm curious about the impact blue light has on my overall sleep quality. Online advice around blue light is conflicting. Some sources say it's sure to ruin your sleep, while others say it's not so bad. So, I've dug into studies and reached out to Dr. Michael Gradisar, head of sleep science at Sleep Cycle, and insomnia and sleep therapist Dr. Anna Joyce to set the record straight. Here's what these two experts want you to know about blue light and sleep... Blue light is part of the visible light spectrum and accounts for about one-third of all light we see as humans. This type of light influences alertness, hormone production and sleep cycles. Blue light comes naturally from the sun, the biggest source of blue light we consume, but it can also come from artificial sources like smartphone screens, televisions and fluorescent and LED lights. Bright light, i.e blue light, interferes with the circadian rhythm by suppressing production of the sleep-inducing hormone melatonin. When the brain identifies light, it sends signals to the body telling it to be alert rather than sleepy. So, in theory, blue light exposure in the evening should delay sleep onset. On the flip side, it helps us feel alert come morning. Hence, exposing yourself to natural daylight first thing is a key tip for fighting morning grogginess and getting up and at 'em, which in turn helps us sleep better at night. The common assumption is blue light is bad news for sleep — and with right reason. A 2022 systematic review by Swiss researchers of studies investigating the influence of blue light exposure on sleep, performance and wellbeing concluded blue light could have negative effects such as a decrease in sleep quality and sleep duration. However, recent research by The Conversation suggests blue light isn't as bad for sleep as we've previously been led to believe. Sleep experts from Sweden, Australia and Israel found blue light exposure only delayed sleep by 2.7 minutes — hardly substantial. Experts, including Dr. Gradisar and Dr. Joyce, now agree that although light from screens does delay melatonin release, it only makes a minimal difference. Light from screens just isn't bright enough to significantly affect sleep patterns. "For blue light to meaningfully shift a person's sleep timing, the light source needs to be at least ten times brighter than what's emitted from phones, tablets, or other devices," says Dr. Gradisar. Rather, it is our cultural inability to shut down screens at bedtime, as we're sucked into unceasing social media feeds, that impacts our sleep, particularly how long we sleep for. Research from Dr. Gradisar shows the biggest sleep disrupter is delaying bedtime due to screen use rather than the light from the screens. "Don't fear using screens before bed — just time them wisely," he says. "While blue light from phones is often blamed, my research has shown that the biggest disrupter is actually delaying bedtime, not the light or the content from screens themselves." "Watching TV or listening to a podcast as a wind-down routine can be perfectly fine, especially if it helps reduce nighttime overthinking, as long as it doesn't cut into the number of hours of rest you get." Evening blue light is pretty much unavoidable in our modern world and, as tech gurus here at Tom's Guide, we're not ones to say get rid of your gadgets altogether. Instead follow these tips for sleeping well even after your screentime fix… When I do fall into the trap of being glued to my phone in the evening, it's certainly harder to switch off. Be it catching up with gossip in the group chat, online shopping or a doom scroll through Instagram reels, I rarely come away from my screen feeling sleepy. Instead I'm thinking about the breakup of a couple I've never met, contemplating whether I really need that new outfit or dreaming of that holiday destination that was made to look oh-so perfect in a 30 second video. "The problem is that we usually use screens for engaging and alerting activities, like work, reading the news, or scrolling social media; all things which stimulate us and affect our mood," explains Dr. Joyce. "The brain needs time to wind down in order to fall asleep so some transition time between screen use and bedtime is helpful." Similarly, Dr. Gradisar recommends podcasts or watching TV for your bedtime digital fix instead of scrolling. "TV is a passive device compared to phones. Many people fall asleep just fine after watching TV, with some drifting off while it's on," he says. There's no serious harm in using screens as part of a nighttime wind-down routine — television programmes or films are a mainstay in many people's evenings. But, as Dr. Gradisar's research shows, you need to be disciplined over your screen shut off time before bed to ensure it doesn't eat into crucial sleep time. That means having the self-control to flick up the TikTok app or turn off Netflix rather than hit 'play next episode' when bedtime rolls around. A 2024 study by researchers at the University of Otago concludes we should keep screens out of bed for better sleep, rather than cutting them out in the evening completely. This enforces a cut off point for screens — i.e. use them on the sofa, but put them down once you get into bed. You can buy blue light blocking glasses and lamps that help minimize the glare of screens and prevent blue light from interfering with sleep. I've been using a blue light blocking clip light (on sale for $29.99/£19.99 $25.49/£16.99 at Bon Charge) to read before bed. I've found replacing my bright bedside lamp with this dim red light has been a game changer for helping me drift off immediately after closing my book. While the scientific studies around blue light blocking glasses are tenuous, our Tom's Guide team have tested the best blue light blocking glasses you can buy online right now. These glasses are designed to filter out wavelengths that disrupt our circadian rhythms. Be their effectiveness placebo or not, we think they're worth trying if you're concerned about how blue light is impacting your circadian cycle. Plus, they won't break the bank.
