The impact of social policy on the mental health of sexual and gender minority young people

This study investigates the impact of education policy on the mental health of SGM students in the UK.

Project Summary

Sexual (e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer) and gender (e.g. trans, non-binary, gender diverse) minority (SGM) young people have worse mental health than their heterosexual and cisgender peers1-4. This mental health inequality is due to stigma, discrimination, and prejudice 5. In schools, SGM students report high levels of bullying and discrimination 6. 

In September 2020, the Department for Education issued statutory guidance on Compulsory Relationships and Sex Education (RSHE) for all schools in England. This guidance was applauded by SGMs for mandating the teaching of SGM identities and was considered a step towards inclusive education. Research from North America has shown that SGM inclusive curricula can reduce homophobic bullying, improve school climate and mental health8. However, the impact of education policy on the mental health of SGM students has not been investigated in the UK. 

Understanding the impact of RSHE is important in today’s increasingly volatile socio-political climate for SGM youth. This project is timely given an ongoing government consultation that may roll back SGM inclusive curriculum. These changes are likely to disproportionately impact trans and gender-diverse individuals 9. This comes amidst increasing hostile public attitudes towards gender minorities, as found in British Social Attitudes Survey 10. 

Beyond the educational environment, SGM youth also face broader social inequalities, such as poverty and homelessness 11,12. Social policies can address these issues and are disproportionately relied upon by SGMs13. However, little is known about impact of social policies on SGM mental health. 

This project has two complementary workstreams; 
Stream (1) Evaluating the impact of the compulsory RSHE policy on (a) mental health of SGM students (b) underlying pathways (e.g. bullying) using Understanding Society dataset. It will also evaluate impact of RSHE on cisgender-heterosexual students' mental health because inclusive curricula also improves mental health of non-SGM students 8. 
Stream (2) Identifying social policies that may have affected the mental health of SGM youth. This will inform a larger grant application to evaluate the impact of these policies on mental health. A policy mapping exercise will be conducted through three stakeholder events with (a) SGM youth (aged 16-29); (b) third sector SGM organisations; and (c) policy experts. This will guide understandings of current policy landscapes, mental health impacts, and how to effectively engage youth, third sector, and policymakers in future work. 

References: 
1.    Marshal MP, Dietz LJ, Friedman MS, Stall R, Smith HA, McGinley J, et al. Suicidality and depression disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual youth: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2011;49(2):115-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.02.005 PMID: 21783042 PMCID: PMC3649127 3. Semlyen J, 
2.    King M, Varney J, Hagger-Johnson G. Sexual orientation and symptoms of common mental disorder or low wellbeing: combined meta-analysis of 12 UK population health surveys. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-0767-z 
3.    Amos R, Manalastas EJ, White R, Bos H, Patalay P. Mental health, social adversity, and health-related outcomes in sexual minority adolescents: a contemporary national cohort study. The Lancet Child Adolescent Health. 2020;4(1):36-45. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30339-6 
4.    Irish, M., Solmi, F., Mars, B., King, M., Lewis, G., Pearson, R. M., ... & Lewis, G. (2019). Depression and self-harm from adolescence to young adulthood in sexual minorities compared with heterosexuals in the UK: a population-based cohort study. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 3(2), 91-98. 
5.    Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
6.    Gower, A.L., Rider, G.N., McMorris, B.J. et al. Bullying Victimization Among LGBTQ Youth: Critical Issues and Future Directions. Curr Sex Health Rep 10, 246–254 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-018-0169-y 
7.    Schlief M, Stefanidou T, Wright T, Levy G, Pitman A, Lewis G. A rapid realist review of universal interventions to promote inclusivity and acceptance of diverse sexual and gender identities in schools. Nature Human Behaviour 2023 2023; : 1–12 
8.    Goldfarb, E. S., & Lieberman, L. D. (2021). Three decades of research: The case for comprehensive sex education. Journal of Adolescent health, 68(1), 13-27.
9.    Guest Editor. (2024, May 24). Controversial RSHE draft: Threatening LGBTQIA+ education amidst election turmoil – Social Sciences Birmingham. https://blog.bham.ac.uk/socialsciencesbirmingham/2024/05/24/controversia...
10.    Swaless K. & Attar TE. (2017) British Social Attitudes edn 34, Moral issues NatCen Social Research 
11.    National Institute of Economic and Social Research. (2016). Inequality among lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender groups in the UK: a review of evidence. In Government Equalities Office. 
12.    Keuroghlian, A. S., Shtasel, D., & Bassuk, E. L. (2014). Out on the street: A public health and policy agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0098852
13.    Matthews, P., Barnett, C., Formby, E., Gregory, L., Lambert, P., and Mann, S. (2024) LGBT+ Welfare and Assets in Great Britain – Main Public Output.