Problem gambling through the lens of population health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to examine problem gambling from a population health perspective. In particular, this research determines the extent to which the household income, regional income inequality, and income insecurity are associated with problem gambling. This thesis consists of four essays. The first essay uses the 2013-2014 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to construct the III by using three variables, namely employment status, current job status, and multiple job status. We used polychoric Principal Component Analysis (polychoric PCA) to construct an III and the constructed III passes a reliability test and validity tests. The second essay estimates the distinct impact of the III on health status, controlling for level of household income and income inequality. The ordered logit (OLOGIT) regression results reveal that the III measures different aspects of income than the material deprivation and income inequality, thus serving to predict health status. The third essay stands as the core of the thesis. It examines the association between problem gambling and household income, regional income inequality and income insecurity. The OLOGIT regression results suggest that individuals with high income insecurity have greater odds of developing gambling problems independent of the roles played by material deprivation and income inequality. To the extent that problem gambling is associated with income insecurity, there is a role for general social policy to play aiming at better addressing income insecurity faced by particular population groups such as the working poor and insecurely employed. The fourth essay quantifies the losses of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) associated with problem gambling in Canada. Using the 2013-2014 CCHS, I ran an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to estimate the association between the Health Utility Index (HUI) and problem gambling. The results illustrate that problem gamblers have significantly lower HRQL compared to non-problem gamblers. Using standard metrics for the value of a Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), the annual cost associated with the losses of HRQL is $4,950 per problem gambler per year, and 95% confidence interval suggests that they may range from $300 to $9,450.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".