The Association of Frequency of Worry About Financial Debt With Substance Use Among Adults in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Financial debt and associated stress might increase the risk of substance use problems or exacerbate existing ones. Little evidence is available about the degree of debt stress and its association with substance use. The objective of this study was to examine the associations of the frequency of worry about debt with heavy episodic drinking (HED), daily smoking, e-cigarette use, and cannabis use in the past 30 days. METHODS: Data were utilized from the 2020/2022 Monitor study, a repeated cross-sectional survey of adults 18 years and older in Ontario, Canada. The surveys employed a web-based panel survey of 6038 adults and collected data on debt-related stress, HED, tobacco smoking, e-cigarettes, and cannabis use in the past 30 days. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated from logistic regression models accounting for sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 18.4% of respondents reported that they were worried about their debt most or all of the time. Accounting for household income, educational status, employment status, and other factors, the results revealed that there was a dose-response relationship between the frequency of worry about debt and substance use including daily smoking, e-cigarette use, and cannabis use in the past 30 days compared to those who were not worried at all about their debt. Sex differences were also found in the association between worry about debt and e-cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of worry about debt might have an important role in substance use, which suggests that financial well-being is vital in substance use prevention and harm reduction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".