Back

The impact of the two-child benefit cap on parental mental, general, and financial health in the UK

Paulino, A.; Dykxhoorn, J.; Evans-Lacko, S.; Patalay, P.

2026-04-01 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.03.30.26349774 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The two-child benefit cap, implemented in April 2017, restricted Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit to the first two children in households with three or more children. We evaluate the impact of the two-child benefit cap on parental mental, general, and financial health, as well as investigate how this may differ in particular sociodemographic and economic subgroups based on sex, ethnicity and income. Methods: Data was obtained from parents (youngest child aged 5 or under) in the UK Household Longitudinal Survey from 2009 to 2023. Outcomes included parental mental health (psychological distress and life satisfaction), general health (health-related quality of life (HRQoL), self-rated health and health satisfaction), and financial health (current financial situation and financial outlook). We used complementary policy evaluation methods with different strengths and assumptions to triangulate evidence and strengthen inference: interrupted time series (ITS), difference-in-differences (DiD) and controlled time series analysis (CITS). Subgroup analyses were stratified by sex, ethnicity, and income. Findings: Across methods, findings consistently indicate that the policy worsened life satisfaction, self-rated health, health satisfaction, and financial health for parents of 3+ children. Findings were less consistent across methods for psychological distress and HRQoL. For instance, for psychological distress ITS and CITS indicate adverse impacts of the policy; however, one DiD model did not support this conclusion due to greater average worsening in the control group between the pre- and post-periods. Subgroup analyses indicate greater mental health and general health impacts in lower income, male and ethnic minority parents; while financial health was negatively impacted in all subgroups examined. Conclusions: Using repeated cross-sectional panel data and triangulating across causal inference methods, we conclude that the two-child benefit cap in the UK had a measurable adverse impact on most health outcomes examined, with worse outcomes for male, lower income and ethnic minority parents.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 24%
7.0%
3
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.0%
5
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
7
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
9
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
10
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.7%
13
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
14
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
15
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
16
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
17
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
19
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
22
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
26
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
27
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
29
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%