MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408007313 · doi:10.1080/00913847.2025.2473874

Problem gambling among elite ice hockey players in Sweden – elevated prevalence among male, but not female athletes

2025· article· en· W4408007313 on OpenAlexaff
Anders Håkansson, Mitchell Andersson, Emma Claesdotter‐Knutsson, Göran Kenttä

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physician and Sportsmedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyAthletesElite athletesEliteField hockeyDemographyPsychologyPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationGeographyFootballPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: An emerging body of research reveals a heightened risk of gambling problems among elite athletes, particularly among males, but these studies often suffer from small sample sizes and lack diverse representation across sports and groups. This study aimed to investigate gambling problems and their correlates among elite male and female ice hockey players in Sweden's top leagues. METHODS: During the labor union's on-site visits to Swedish ice hockey clubs in the top two tiers for males and the top tier for females, a web-based survey was conducted. Players were screened for gambling problems using the Problem Gambling Severity Index, and for depression, anxiety, and hazardous drinking using other standardized instruments. Estimated study participation was 75-80%. RESULTS: Among male athletes, 12% met the criteria for moderate-risk or problem gambling, while none of the females met this threshold. Approximately 24% of male and 2% of female participants reported any degree of at-risk gambling. In males, gambling problems were strongly associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms and with hazardous alcohol consumption. CONCLUSION: Gambling problems are 3-4 times more prevalent among elite male ice hockey players compared to young men in the general population. The authors discuss the associated mental health consequences, vulnerability to match-fixing-related fraud, and the need for preventive measures and easy access to treatment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physician and SportsmedicineSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207