ArticleThe Canadian journal of human sexuality
Age of Sexual Consent Law in Canada: Population-Based Evidence for Law and Policy.
Article in The Canadian journal of human sexuality. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subgroup Analyses of Girl2Girl, a Text Messaging-Based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program for Sexual Minority Girls: Results from a National RCT.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023Trial
- Are we leveling the playing field? Trends and disparities in sports participation among sexual minority youth in Canada.Journal of sport and health science · 2018Article
- Trends in suicidality among sexual minority and heterosexual students in a Canadian population-based cohort study.Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity · 2017Article
- HIV testing and linkage to services for youth.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2015Article
- Sexual Health and Risk Behaviour among East Asian Adolescents in British Columbia.The Canadian journal of human sexuality · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the implications of the 2008 increase in age for sexual consent in Canada using a population health survey of Canadian adolescents. Government rationales for the increase asserted younger adolescents were more likely to experience sexual exploitation and engage in risky sexual behaviour than adolescents 16 and older. Using data from sexually experienced adolescents in the 2008 British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey (BC AHS, N=6,262; age range 12 - 19; 52% female), analyses documented the scope of first intercourse partners who were not within the 'close in age' exemptions, then compared sexual behaviours of younger teens (14 and 15 years) with older teens (16 and 17) navigating their first year of sexual activity. Comparisons included: forced sex, sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs, multiple partners, condom use, effective contraception use, self-reported sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy involvement. Results showed very few 14- and 15-year-olds had first intercourse partners who were not within the 'close in age' exemptions based on age (boys: <2%, girls: 3-5%). In contrast, among 12- and 13-year-olds (a group unaffected by the law's change) between 25% and 50% had first intercourse partners who were not within the 'close in age' exemptions, and almost 40% of teens who first had sex before age 12 reported a first partner age 20 years or more. In their first year of intercourse, 14- and 15-year-olds were slightly more likely to report forced sex and 3 or more partners than older teens, but otherwise made similarly healthy decisions. This study demonstrates the feasibility of evaluating policy using population health data and shows that better strategies are needed to protect children 13 and under from sexual abuse.
Identifiers
27087775PMC4830689What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.