Powerless yet powerful: The duality of everyday life of partners of persons with gambling problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how partners of persons with gambling problems experience the family’s everyday life, focusing on family relations and parenting. Problem gambling creates a serious impact on household finances, social life and health, emotional and relational issues. Between 6 and 10 persons are directly affected by a person’s gambling problems. Despite this, research exploring how daily life and relations in the family is affected is scarce. A qualitative method was used to acquire a deeper understanding of partners’ experiences of everyday life, relations and parenting. In-depth interviews were carried out with nine female partners of problem gamblers. All nine women had been responsible for minor children. A thematic analysis was used to systemize the participants’ experiences. The results determined how living with a partner with a gambling problem is a lonely project. Partners of problem gamblers take on a lot of responsibility for daily life activities, household finances and parenting but experience little support from their partner. A general lack of knowledge and recognition of gambling as a problem, increases the loneliness, shame and burden. Despite gambling having a tremendous impact on daily life and relations, families receive little support. Taking over responsibility and becoming the one in charge, can be understood as ways of reclaiming dignity and gaining power albeit within limits. This duality needs to be considered when providing support to families.RésuméCette étude explore la manière dont les partenaires de joueurs compulsifs vivent la vie de famille au quotidien, en mettant l’accent sur les relations familiales et la parentalité. Le jeu compulsif a de graves répercussions sur les finances du ménage, la vie sociale et la santé, sans compter les problèmes émotionnels et relationnels qu’il occasionne. Entre six et dix personnes sont directement affectées par les problèmes de jeu d’une personne. Malgré cela, les recherches sont rares sur les effets sur la vie quotidienne et les relations au sein de la famille. On a utilisé une méthodologie qualitative pour mieux comprendre les expériences des partenaires dans la vie quotidienne, les relations et la parentalité. Des entretiens approfondis ont été menés avec neuf partenaires féminins de joueurs compulsifs. Toutes avaient à charge des enfants mineurs. On a utilisé une analyse thématique pour systématiser les expériences des participants. Les résultats montrent à quel point vivre avec un partenaire ayant un problème de jeu oblige à assumer seul les responsabilités. Les partenaires de joueurs problématiques endossent beaucoup de responsabilités pour les activités quotidiennes, les finances du ménage et la parentalité, et elles obtiennent peu de soutien de leur partenaire. Un manque général de connaissances et le fait de ne pas reconnaître le jeu comme un problème augmente la solitude, la honte et le fardeau. Bien que le jeu ait un impact considérable sur la vie quotidienne et les relations, les familles reçoivent peu de soutien. Assumer les tâches familiales et en être responsable peut être vu comme un moyen de regagner de la dignité et d’avoir le pouvoir, même dans certaines limites. Le soutien offert aux familles doit tenir compte de cette dualité.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".