The protective role of religiosity against problem gambling: findings from a five-year prospective study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Little research has examined the potential protective influence of religiosity against problem gambling; a common addictive behavior, and one with a host of associated negative health and social outcomes. The aims of this study were to examine (1) the potential longitudinal association between religiosity and problem gambling among adults and (2) the potential moderating role of gender on this association. Data were from five waves of the Quinte Longitudinal Study (QLS), between 2006 and 2010. Participants were Canadian adults from Belleville, Ontario, Canada ( n = 4121). A multiple group (based on gender) latent growth curve analysis was conducted to examine the overall trajectory of problem gambling severity. Two models were tested; the first examined the influence of past-year religious service attendance, and the second examined an overall measure of personal religiosity on the trajectory of problem gambling. The Problem and Pathological Gambling Measure (PPGM) was used as a continuous measure. The Rohrbaugh-Jessor Religiosity Scale (RJRS) was used to assess past-year frequency of religious service attendance and personal religiosity. Religious affiliation (Protestant, Catholic, Atheist/Agnostic, Other, Prefer not to say) was also included in the models. At baseline, higher frequency of past-year religious service attendance (males: β= −0.54, females: β= −0.68, p < 0.001 for both) and greater overall personal religiosity (males: β= −0.17, females: β= −0.13, p < 0.001 for both) were associated with lower PPGM scores. The moderating effect of gender indicated that the influence of past-year religious service attendance was greater among females (χ 2 diff (44) = 336.8, p < 0.001 ); however, the effect of overall religiosity was greater among males (χ 2 diff (36) = 213.4, p < 0.001 ). Findings were mixed with respect to religious affiliation. No measures of religiosity or religious affiliation were associated with the overall decline in problem gambling severity. These findings suggest that religiosity may act as a static protective factor against problem gambling severity but may play a less significant role in predicting change in problem gambling severity over time.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».