Parental Gambling and the Health and Wellbeing of Children Derived From Two Nationally Representative Cohorts of Australian Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gambling-related harms can impact the lives of children living with someone experiencing a gambling problem. These harms have been associated with impacts across a number of domains. However, previous studies exploring gambling-related effects on the health and wellbeing of children have had conflicting results. This study aimed to further understand the impact of parental gambling problems on children's health and wellbeing using nationally representative data from Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. The subsample of interest contained 3,695 children (49.1% female) across two cohorts aged around 12 and 16 years. Parental gambling problems were measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Child health and wellbeing was measured via the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D), the Spence Anxiety Scale, the Short Mood & Feelings Questionnaire, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and self-harm and happiness questions. Across both cohorts, the study found significant associations between parental gambling problems and poorer health, anxiety and/or low mood symptoms, and behavioural and emotional problems in children. The study found that more than 10% of Australian children were living in households with adults experiencing some level of gambling problems, including 1.2% in households with severe problems. Policymakers and educators might help ensure that the appropriate information and support is being provided to these children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".