Gambling Habits and Attitudes among Athlete and Non-Athlete High School Students in Skåne Region, Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature has reported increased rates of gambling problems in athletes compared to non-athletes. More liberal gambling-related attitudes have been suggested as a reason, although this rarely has been researched. The present study aimed to examine gambling experience, gambling problems, and gambling-related attitudes and parental gambling experience in high school students, comparing student-athletes to students at conventional schools. This is a cross-sectional web survey study in high school students (N = 473, 53% at sports high schools, 57% male) at eleven schools in the Skåne region, Sweden, who answered a web survey addressed gambling experiences, parental gambling and gambling-related attitudes, and included validated screening instruments for gambling problems and psychological distress. A history of any gambling was common and increased with age. Problem gambling was detected in 10% (13% of males and 5% of females, p < .001), and was associated with paternal and maternal gambling but not with psychological distress. Sports high school students were not more likely (9%) than other students (10%) to endorse gambling problems and history of each gambling type. However, paternal (but not maternal) gambling was more commonly reported in athletes, who also had more positive attitudes to gambling's effects on society and gambling availability. In contrast to other studies, this study did not demonstrate higher prevalence of gambling or gambling problems among young athletes than among other students, but liberal attitudes towards gambling, and experience of parental gambling on the father's side, were more common among athletes than among non-athletes. Gambling attitudes in adolescents may need to be targeted in future preventive efforts in young athletes and others.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".