Three-decade research tracking adolescents reports increased psychiatric treatment needs following referral and medical interventions
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A large-scale Finnish study tracking adolescents and young adults over more than three decades has found that individuals referred to gender identity services experienced higher levels of psychiatric treatment both before and after referral, with the gap widening over time.
The peer-reviewed research, published in Acta Paediatrica and examining nearly 2,100 individuals under age 23 alongside more than 16,000 control subjects, reported that those referred to specialized services had significantly higher rates of psychiatric morbidity prior to referral, and those rates increased further in the years that followed, as detailed in the study and reported by Just the News.
Researchers found that 45.7% of referred adolescents had psychiatric treatment histories before referral, compared to 15% among controls. After referral, that figure rose to 61.7% among the study group, while remaining comparatively stable at 14.6% for controls.
Acta Paediatrica – 2026 – Ruuska – Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted S… by yourNEWS Media
The study also identified sharper increases among individuals who underwent medical interventions. Psychiatric morbidity rose from 9.8% to 60.7% among males undergoing feminizing treatments, and from 21.6% to 54.5% among females undergoing masculinizing interventions.
“These adolescents had markedly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls before and after referral, with treatment needs often persisting and even intensifying after medical interventions – on some, they might even have a negative impact,” the authors wrote.
The research was led in part by Riittakerttu Kaltiala, chief psychiatrist at Tampere University Hospital’s Department of Adolescent Psychiatry, who has overseen centralized gender identity services for minors in Finland. Kaltiala previously stated in a separate interview with The Free Press, “Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.”
The dataset spans referrals from 1996 through 2019 and includes later cohorts after 2010, which researchers noted showed higher psychiatric needs both before and after referral. The study highlighted that individuals referred after 2010 had greater mental health treatment rates than earlier cohorts.
The findings have drawn attention from groups focused on medical evidence standards. The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine said in a statement posted online that Finland’s comprehensive registry data provides a complete population-level view, contrasting it with studies that rely on smaller or self-selected samples.
Additional debate has emerged around interpretation of the results. Critics of the study have challenged its methodology and conclusions. A critic cited in a social media post questioned aspects of the analysis, while Harvard Law School instructor Alejandra Caraballo published a rebuttal in an online post criticizing both the findings and the researchers.
An advocacy journalist also disputed the study’s conclusions in a published response, arguing that the results reflect bias in data collection and clinical practices.
Supporters of the research pointed to its scale and design. British clinical psychologist Dionne Joseph said in an interview that the study’s use of matched control groups allows for meaningful comparisons across populations.
Debate over the study has extended to broader discussions about scientific inquiry and public discourse. Greg Lukianoff, CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, commented in a social media post that viewpoints challenging prevailing narratives on the issue have faced resistance. In a follow-up response, he wrote, “Anyone who disagrees, anyone who questions, is a transphobe, a right-wing conspiracist, or otherwise an evil un-person.”
Civil rights attorney Carilyn Johnson also weighed in, stating in a public comment that she had observed “an overwhelming wave of support for suppression of free speech” in debates over gender identity.
Other analysts linked the findings to broader discussions about research transparency. Duke University political scientist Timur Kuran wrote in a statement that “it’s now clear why they feared open scientific inquiry.”
The authors of the Finnish study acknowledged certain limitations, including a lack of detailed data on reasons for psychiatric care and the inability to fully account for socioeconomic factors. They also noted that individuals who did not proceed to medical interventions often had more severe preexisting psychiatric conditions.
The findings add to an ongoing international debate over treatment approaches for gender-confused youth, with researchers, clinicians, and advocacy groups continuing to dispute both the interpretation of data and the broader implications for medical practice.
Original article
Comments