Implications of gambling problems for family and interpersonal adjustment: Secondary analyses of the Quinte Longitudinal Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Gambling-related harms subsume a range of adverse consequences for individuals, as well as interpersonal harms; the latter including effects of gambling on families and primary support networks. These ‘collateral’ effects are presumed to be widespread and may account for much of the public health impact of gambling. Notwithstanding, there have been few studies of such implications for family or interpersonal adjustment, with existing research characterised mainly by qualitative designs, clinical samples and cross-sectional methods. The overall aims of this project were thus to evaluate (1) whether gambling problems predict overall trajectories of change in family or interpersonal adjustment, and (2) whether annual measures of gambling problems predict time-specific decreases in family or interpersonal adjustment, when measured concurrently and prospectively. DESIGN: The investigation was based on secondary analyses of data from the Quinte Longitudinal Study (QLS), which is a prospective survey of n = 4,211 community-dwelling adults from the Quinte region of Ontario. The study involved random digit dialling of telephone numbers around the city of Belleville, and recruitment of both ‘general population’ and ‘at risk’ groups (the latter oversampling people who were likely to develop problems with gambling). Five waves of assessment were conducted (2006-2010), and involved repeated administration of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), which defined at-risk gambling (ARG: PGSI 1-2) and moderate-risk / problem gambling (MR/PG: PGSI 3+). Outcomes included: (1) family functioning, assessed using a 7-point rating scale of overall functioning; (2) social support, assessed using items from the Nonsupport subscale of the Personality Assessment Inventory; and (3) relationship satisfaction, measured by the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Latent Trajectory Modelling (LTM) was used to estimate the overall trajectories of change in family and interpersonal adjustment, which were predicted by gambling problems at baseline; and also how time-specific problems predicted deviations from these underlying trajectories. RESULTS: Baseline measures of ARG and MR/PG did not predict rates of change in overall trajectories of family or interpersonal adjustment. Rather, the annual measures of MR/PG predicted time-specific and concurrent decreases in family functioning (Estimate: -0.11, p<.01), social support (Estimate: -0.28, p<.01), and relationship satisfaction (Estimate: -0.53, p<.01). ARG predicted concurrent levels of family functioning (Estimate: -0.07, p<.01), but not social support or relationship satisfaction. There were time-lagged effects of MR/PG on subsequent levels of family functioning (Estimate: -0.12, p<.01) and social support (Estimate: -0.24, p<.01), but not relationship satisfaction. These significant effects were all independent of co-occurring levels of depression, anxiety, and substance use problems. CONCLUSIONS: In a longitudinal study of Canadian adults, gambling problems did not predict overall trajectories of change in family or interpersonal adjustment. Rather, the annual measures of MR/PG predicted time-specific and concurrent decreases in all outcomes, and lower family functioning and social support across waves. These results provide evidence of public health impacts of gambling problems, through demonstration of negative implications for family and interpersonal functioning, when considered over time and in a community sample. They support a view of gambling problems as precursors to short-term crises in families and primary support networks, which may be capable of adapting to such ‘shocks’ in the longer term. These short-term effects of gambling problems suggest a need for initiatives to support families, in particular, during time of crisis.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».