Page 1 of 1
Useless Gov't surveys
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:50 am
by CDN_Merlin
OTTAWA - A new study has found the use of health-care services differs depending on sexual preference.
The Statistics Canada study examined whether sexual preference was a factor in health-care use between 2003 and 2005 - it looked at things like consulting health-care providers, having a regular doctor and using preventive procedures such as pap tests.
It found gay men were much more likely than heterosexual men to have consulted medical specialists or mental-health service providers such as social workers in the year prior to the survey.
Lesbians were less likely than heterosexual women to have seen a family doctor during the same period or to have undergone a pap test.
About 346,000 adults identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual in the survey, representing 1.9 per cent of the total population aged 18 to 59.
The study suggests the use of health-care services differs by sexual preference independent of other factors such as age, income, education and health status.
About 29 per cent of gay men consulted a medical specialist in the 12 months before the survey, compared with 19 per cent of heterosexual men.
Similarly, eight per cent of gay men consulted a psychologist, nearly triple the proportion of three per cent among their heterosexual counterparts. About seven per cent of gay men consulted social workers or counsellors, compared with four per cent of heterosexual men.
There were no differences between bisexual and heterosexual men in consultations with doctors. However, bisexual men had more frequent contact with social workers or counsellors.
Seventy-seven per cent of lesbians had seen a family doctor in the 12 months before the survey, compared with 83 per cent of heterosexual women.
On the other hand, 10 per cent of lesbians consulted a psychologist, as did 11 per cent of bisexual women, well above the proportion of only four per cent among heterosexual women.
Seven per cent of lesbians and nine per cent of bisexual women attended a self-help group, while only three per cent of their heterosexual counterparts did so.
About 17 per cent of bisexual women had contact with social workers or counsellors, nearly three times the proportion of six per cent among heterosexual women.
Statistically similar proportions of gay, bisexual and heterosexual men reported that they did not have a regular doctor.
But 19 per cent of lesbians and 24 per cent of bisexual women did not have a regular doctor, as opposed to only 12 per cent of heterosexuals.
Do we really need to know this? Can anyone find any revelant reason why this would help our country?
It amazes me to see how much money the Gov't spends on useless surveys.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:19 am
by Dedman
I always knew dikes were wack!
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:10 pm
by Flabby Chick
You never put a thumb in one, ded? Really!!!
Re:
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:45 pm
by Dedman
Flabby Chick wrote:You never put a thumb in one, ded? Really!!!
LOL. My life has never been that exciting.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:50 pm
by TIGERassault
What? Gay people, who many people instantly claim to have some psychological defect, visit more psychologists than straight people? Nonsense!
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:08 pm
by roid
it's all explained by society's negative view of homosexuals.
compare to the incidence of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is more often found in immigrant populations - people who are having trouble fitting into society.
Thus it is actually theorised that \"fitting in\" to your society around you is a protective factor against Schizophrenia. And viceversa: being alienated from society is a risk factor for developing Schizophrenia (also other mental illnesses, eg: Depression, even Alzheimer's).
Schizophrenics have an (incredibly) high suicide rate, and obviously a high rate of doctor consultations.
homosexuals are also more likely to commit suicide.
i don't see why any of this is strange. Do you guys honestly not understand either the relationship between social marginalization and mental health?
Or the process of gaining insight from surveys, and how governments shape policy accordingly?
don't they teach these kinds of basic management/governance skills in school?
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:43 pm
by Ford Prefect
Since this is a Canadian survey the good news is that homosexual couples statistically have a higher incomes than heterosexual couples and so they pay more tax to cover all those extra doctor visits.
About 346,000 adults identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual in the survey, representing 1.9 per cent of the total population aged 18 to 59.
OMG! How many surveys did they send out? Usually you're lucky to get 20% back. If only 1.9% of the returns were from gay people that is a return of almost 2 million surveys!!
A busy day at Stats. Canada. Who says civil servants don't work hard.
Re:
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:21 pm
by Foil
roid wrote:i don't see why any of this is strange. Do you guys honestly not understand either the relationship between social marginalization and mental health?
Or the process of gaining insight from surveys, and how governments shape policy accordingly?
Agreed!
I'd rather have a government use a survey (which is actually a fairly inexpensive way to get good information from a demographic population), than to base their actions solely on the opinion of politicians.
Quality unbiased statistical data can sometimes go a long way toward helping groups which are normally marginalized/forgotten get the support they need.
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:25 am
by TIGERassault
Ford Prefect wrote:Usually you're lucky to get 20% back. If only 1.9% of the returns were from gay people that is a return of almost 2 million surveys!!
Hmm... Maths was never your strongest subject, was it?
346,000 divided by 1.9 multiplied by 100 = 18,210,000
Anyway, I'm not sure if it meant that 1.9% of people who took the survey are gay, it looks more to me like 1.9% of all people between 18 and 59 in the country both took the survey and are gay. But my mind's too cloudy right now to tell.
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:43 pm
by Ford Prefect
I divided by 0.019, or at least I though I did and yeah that would be 18,210,000. But with a population of 33,000,000 that is an impossible number of returned surveys. Perhaps the statistics came from part of the last census not some random, extraneous survey as the article would seem to indicate.