ArticleBMJ public health2025
Mental health of UK youth following the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance in England: a natural experiment study using Understanding Society data.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) encourages people in low-income households to stay in education. It was abolished in England but continues in the rest of the UK (RUK). We investigated if the abolition of the EMA was associated with psychological distress using a difference-in-difference design. Methods: The sample of 1328 observations was drawn from Understanding Society participants aged 16/17 at the start of the academic years 2009-2018 and in the bottom income decile. Exposure to the EMA policy regime was identified using an interaction between the UK area (RUK vs England) and EMA policy period. The 2009/2010 academic years indicated the EMA period, 2011 the transition period (when EMA receipt was limited to existing recipients) and 2012-2018 post-EMA. The primary outcome was the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) score ranging 0-36. Other outcomes include the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) and a physical health falsification outcome. Linear regression using robust SEs, adjusting for sex and month of interview, was conducted. Results: In England, relative to RUK and the EMA period, the transition period (Coef 4.20; 95% CI 1.12 to 7.28) and the post-EMA period (Coef 2.89; 95% CI 0.67 to 5.11) were associated with worse GHQ-12 scores. Results for other mental health outcomes were similar, with no associations with the falsification outcome. Conclusions: Young people living in low-income households in England appeared to have worse mental health following the removal of the EMA, compared with RUK. However, it is not possible to rule out the potential contribution of cointerventions, such as the raising of mandatory age for education to 17 years in 2013 and 18 years in 2015.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.