Background

Are consistent poorer ratings of mental health among girls relative to boys trustworthy? These ratings need to be juxtaposed with objective measures of girls’ greater academic achievement, less risk-taking behavior, and lower suicide rates [1–4]. The paradox of girls’ apparent poorer mental health alongside greater well-being is unexplained. We will explore whether the frameworks, circumstances and characteristics considered when subjectively rating mental health differ for girls and boys. If so, then SRMH could be measuring different constructs in each group and would, as a result, differentially reflect actual mental health. This matters for several reasons. If SRMH rests on girls’ and boys’ different interpretations of what constitutes good or poor mental health, it will not be a homogeneous measure and thus will be invalid [1, 5]. Statistical findings of a growing mental health crisis among youth, and especially girls are shaping health and education policies (e.g. calls for more mental health professionals, return to school plans post-pandemic, or ‘accommodations’ in higher education) [6–9]. If these interventions respond to unreliable information they risk being misdirected and might actually undermine rather than foster strengths and resilience.

Whether self or media reported, mental health of adolescents and particularly girls is increasingly said to be poor and declining [7, 10]. Administrative data capturing clinical diagnoses of anxiety and depression over two decades reveal a similar albeit weaker trend. In Canada, from 1997–2017 the rate of physician diagnosed anxiety and depression among girls exceeded that for boys, with small increments for all beginning in 2012 [11]. Subjective indicators are more compelling. In numerous, high-income countries, girls consistently and increasingly report greater anxiety, depression, stress, and psychological distress than do boys [12–16].

Apparent poorer mental health among girls exists alongside their greater (relative to boys) adaptability, resilience, academic achievement, self-control and less frequent risk-taking [17]. By resilience we mean positive adaptation in the face of adversity [18]. How might the inverse relationship, seen in girls, between mental health and these indications of well-being be reconciled? This is not a question that has been researched. In particular, there has been no consideration of whether this paradox could arise from gender divergence embedded in youth’s interpretation of the measure, SRMH.

What, then, is gender and how is it different from sex? We define sex as a set of biological attributes based on chromosomes, gene expression, hormones, and reproductive anatomy, and gender as the way life is shaped by socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expressions ascribed on the basis of sex [19]. We recognize the importance of the psychological and material in constituting the gendered person [3]. When we use the term, gender, we acknowledge that sex and gender are interconnected in how lives are lived, and in shaping and rating health. Finally, we differentiate gender, a social determinant of health, from the individual-level characteristic of gender identity.

To identify what is actually being measured when youth are asked to rate their mental health it would be useful to explore differences in meanings attributed to this measure [20]. For example, girls’ apparent poorer SRMH might arise from gender differences in interpretations, approaches, and expansiveness with which the question is viewed, or from greater willingness to examine and name weaknesses. Previous research has demonstrated that adolescent girls are more alert to stressors and describe lower life satisfaction than do boys [21, 22]. Girls’ internalization of reactions to lived problems, and higher expectations for themselves may produce anxiety. In contrast, boys tend to focus more on external circumstances such as life events that they cannot control and from which they, therefore, can absolve themselves of responsibility [16]. Although stigma around mental health is decreasing overall, girls’ apparent introspection and reflection could heighten their insights about and willingness to name weaknesses [23]. In contrast, less reflective and more externalized traditional male responses could translate into a subjective rating of ‘I am fine’. In keeping with resilience theory, it may be that more self-reflective youth and those with greater self-mastery and control hesitate to rate their MH highly, using a lower rating to push themselves to achieve [24].

To the best of our knowledge there have been no attempts to tease apart whether attributing different meanings to subjective measures of mental health underpin gender disparities in responses. Might the internalizing and externalizing described above lead each group (boys, girls) to weigh aspects of their lives (social supports, family relationships, etc.) differently? For example, if a girl considered family discord as a precursor of SRMH and her twin brother did not, despite similar lived realities their subjective mental health rating might be quite different. The girl and boy would, in effect, be answering different questions when asked to rate their mental health. A single indicator used for a complex health outcome such as mental health may in fact measure different constructs for different groups. This will possibly induce a measurement validity issue. Our aim was to determine what personal and social characteristics or experiences youth consider when making subjective mental health ratings, and whether these vary with for boys and girls. Such variation could partially explain girls’ apparent SRMH disadvantage in the face of their greater academic and general well-being.

Methods

This observational study was conducted via an online survey of > 700 youth age 13–18. We examined descriptive data, and then undertook factor analysis to identify latent factors that youth consider in rating their mental health.

Results

The 506 girls surveyed were almost twice as likely as were the 216 boys to state that their SRMH was poor (47.8% girls versus 27.8% boys) (Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Frequency distributions of self-reported health outcomes in boys, girls and non-binary participants; n (column percentage).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295704.t001

Those identifying as non-binary (n = 43) were too small in number for sub-analysis but are included when data for all participants are analysed. All participants contemplated similar circumstances in making their determination of SRMH (Table 2). A few notable sex/gender differences did, however, emerge. Boys were more likely to take into account sense of identity and self-confidence, physical well-being, exercise, foods eaten and screen time, while girls paid more attention to having a boyfriend or girlfriend, comparisons with peers, and school pressure and performance than did boys.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Average ratings of importance of characteristics when considering SRMH (range 1 to 4).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295704.t002

With factor analysis five components emerged for the group as a whole (Table 3). The first, which we will refer to as resilience, combined ‘self confidence’, ‘sense of identity’, ‘ability to cope’ and ‘self-acceptance’. The second component, behavior/community, merged ‘exercise’, ‘screentime/use’, ‘sleep patterns’, ‘substance use’, and ‘type of food eaten’ along with community engagement. Third was family (including relationship with and treatment by parents, family interactions, and sense of family financial resources) and fourth was relationships with peers. The fifth component is one we will call future vision and included items such as ‘future plans’ and ‘performance at school’.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Factor loadings analysis of SRH_MH, 5-items solution, the whole sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295704.t003

Stratification by sex or age prior to factor analyses yielded similar component to those found for the whole sample (Table 4).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Factor loadings analysis of SRHMH, 5-items solution, sex stratified.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295704.t004

While items making up these components did not change when the whole group was subdivided by age (13–16, 17–18) (S1 Table) a few sex/gender differences surfaced. Overall, boys and girls considered similar components when rating their mental health and there were no significant differences between the importance of these, as demonstrated by comparable average scores of extracted components (Fig 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Average scores of extracted components for boys and girls.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295704.g001

In absolute terms, however, resilience was more important (showing higher score) for girls whereas family, peer, and future were more important for boys. We also observed minor variations by sex in the items that loaded onto components. Screen time was part of the domain, peers, for girls but behaviour for boys, while treatment by peers contributed to the peers domain only among girls. Plans for the future emerged as a component of ‘future’ for girls but not boys. Among boys, only, being part of a community contributed to the ‘community’ domain, a mental health diagnosis was an element of ‘family’, and sleep was a component of resilience. All five-component solutions seemed sufficient to explain correlations between items (p. values for the Barlett’s test of sphericity <0.001) and larger than 0.60 estimates of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test suggested adequate sample size—both evidence of the robustness of the models. No differences in the perception of the importance of extracted components were observed between age groups and comparing average scores did not show any pattern (Fig 2)

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Average scores of extracted components for 13–16 years and 17–18 years.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295704.g002

Discussion

We examined whether girls and boys are answering the same question when they rate their mental health, that is, does this measure mean the same thing to male and female groups of participants. Underlying and shaping the research question was strong and consistent evidence of a paradox—that girls generally report lower SRMH but other broad markers of well-being such as academic achievement, resilience, less risk-taking behavior and lower rates of suicide all favor girls [11, 30]. Of further importance is methodologic accuracy; for survey data to be trustworthy each respondent must be independent. If clustering based on group characteristics (such as being a girl or a boy) shapes responses, these clusters must be identified and multilevel analyses performed.

Consistent with previous findings female participants reported poorer mental health than did boys, while those whose gender identity did not fit either of these categories reported the poorest SRMH [2, 14, 31]. These ratings did not, however, arise substantially from girls reflecting upon more or different life circumstances than boys. Instead, both boys and girls (and younger and older participants) contemplated relationships with family and friends, individual traits that collectively suggest resilience, behaviors, and their futures [32]. Contrary to what we expected, the explanation for girls’ poorer mental health did not appear to stem from their displaying a broader view of the circumstances that shape SRMH.

As a sensitivity analysis to better explain gender differences within age groups, we compared average scores of extracted components in four groups defined by sex and age (S1 Fig). Results mirrored the individual interactive contributions of age and sex. For example, younger boys compared to other groups showed higher average scores of the peer component which was due to higher scores in boys (compared to girls) and in 13–16 years compared to 17–18 years.

We hypothesize that although life circumstances that underpin subjective ratings were similar, lived or perceived realities for each domain somehow disadvantage the mental health of girls relative to boys. For example, although all consider the same underlying characteristics, girls’ perceptions or realities of relationships with family or friends may be more negative than is the case for boys. In other words, the discrepancy in boys’ and girls’ mental health seems to be unrelated to sex/gender differences in contemplation of meanings prior to reporting SRMH. Girls’ poorer SRMH may, instead, reflect individually or socially mediated inequities in lived experiences and how these work their way ‘under the skin’.

There is, however, a second possible hypothesis. The definition of mental health we presented to participants was: “a feeling of well-being that includes believing you are capable of achieving what you hope to achieve, dealing with stresses in life, going to school and working with enjoyment, being productive, and functioning as a part of your community”. There is some evidence that adversity is not only a source of poorer mental health but also a driver of resilience and success in academic and work arenas [24]. When youth were questioned about responses to a resilience scale some noted that their sense of optimism and drive to always do better made them avoid rating their current function too highly [24]. Other studies have consistently demonstrated that girls’ resilience (as demonstrated by attributes such as self-control, empathy, optimism, self-efficacy) exceeds boys [33]. Entwined with these attributes may be greater introspection and a cautiousness about overstating that all is well. Perceiving or reporting less than perfect SRMH may actually propel girls’ greater resilience and academic accomplishment. The direction of this possible association is difficult to determine. Does poorer SRMH lead to greater resilience, does greater resilience colour the reporting of subjective mental health, or is the relationship bidirectional? Of course, even though adversity may be a necessary precursor of resilience this does not justify allowing children or youth to suffer when that suffering can be alleviated. At the same time the strength that arises from facing adversity and navigating it suggests that trying to shelter youth from distressing circumstances may harm as well as help by diminishing self-mastery, self-efficacy, or other components of resilience [34, 35].

Conclusions

In summary, we examined whether the paradox of girls’ poorer self-reported mental health might arise from differences in what boys and girls consider as the meanings behind the measure, SRMH. In keeping with others’ findings, girls surveyed had much poorer SRMH than did boys. However, both groups considered relatively similar lived circumstances in making their rating. This suggests that SRMH is a valid measure across groups defined by sex. It would appear either that girls realities are more challenging, or that they perceive them as more challenging, perhaps to drive the greater achievement and success they attain. Although our findings allow for hypotheses, empirical explanations for girls’ poorer SRMH but greater well-being remain a paradox. To deepen understanding of this paradox further studies of diverse populations and analysis of representative data is warranted. Such studies should include the collection of qualitative as well as quantitative data.

Supporting information