Exploring the impact on emotional wellbeing of having a spouse or cohabiting partner with elevated Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores: Secondary analysis of cross‐sectional health survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To conduct an exploratory analysis of the association between the mental health and emotional wellbeing of an individual and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores of their spouse or cohabiting partner. DESIGN: Observational study using two sources of secondary data: the Health Survey for England (HSE) and the Scottish Health Survey (SHeS). Data from 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017 (SHeS only) and 2018 (HSE only) were combined to create a single data set. The data contained household identifiers and a household grid, allowing cohabiting couples to be identified. SETTING: England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 20 752 individuals (in 10 376 couples) where both partners had completed the PGSI. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures were four self-reported measures of emotional wellbeing: a binary measure indicating a long-term mental health condition, a scale question on life satisfaction, the twelve-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Health and Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). Gambling harms were measured using the PGSI. Controls included socio-demographic/economic characteristics, and a binary variable indicating whether the individual had spent money in the last 12 months on gambling. FINDINGS: Regression models showed a statistically significant association between lower emotional wellbeing, measured by WEMWBS [Coef. 0.022; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.004-0.040], GHQ-12 Likert scale (Coef. 0.021; 95% CI = 0.000-0.043) and life satisfaction (Coef. 0.036; 95% CI = 0.005-0.067), among individuals who themselves had a PGSI score of zero but whose partner had elevated PGSI scores, when controlling for the individual's own gambling participation and other socio-demographic household and individual characteristics. There was no evidence of an effect between partner's PGSI score and an increased likelihood of a long-term mental health condition amongst the same group. CONCLUSIONS: Decrements to an individual's emotional wellbeing appear to be strongly associated with increased Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores among their spouse/cohabiting partner, with an individual's emotional wellbeing declining as their partner's PGSI score increases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".