Gambling Harms in Adult Social Care Developing an Introductory Question to Identify Gambling Harms
Gambling Harms in Adult Social Care: Developing an ‘Introductory’ Question to Identify Gambling Harms Among Service Users
Address correspondence to CAT Forward, NIHR Policy Research Unit, Health and Social Care Research Unit, Institute for Policy Studies, King's College London, London WC2B 6LE, UK. Email: catherine. forward@kcl. ac.
Find other works by this author Caroline Norrie Caroline NorrieNIHR Policy Research Unit, Health and Social Care Research Unit, Institute for Policy Studies, King's College London, London WC2B 6LE,
Find other works by this author Find other works by this author Stephanie Bramley School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, York, University of York, Yo10 5dd, Find other works by this author Liz Riley Find other works by this author Research & Evaluation, VetconoMore UK, London EC1N 8QP, Find other works by this author James Shearer James Shearer Find other works by this author Find more by this author Emily Finch Emily Finch Find other works by this author Find other works by this author Glenn Stewart Glenn Stewart Emily Finch Find other works by this author Find other works by this author Paul Fletcher Paul Fletcher Enfield Council, Civic Centre Enfield, Enfield 1 3xa, Find other works by this author Jill Manthorpe Jill Manthorpe Enfield Council, Civic Centre Enfield, Enfield 1 3xa, Find other works by this author Heather Wardle Heather Wardle Lord Kelvin Adam Smith Social Science Reader, University of Glasgow Find other works by this author Find other works by this author The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 53, Issue 8, December 2023, Pages 3584-3607, https://doi. org/10. 1093/bjsw/bcad155 The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 53, Issue 8, December 2023, Pages 3584-3607, https://doi. org/10. 1093/bjsw/bcad155 June 22, 2023 Accepted Find other works by this authorPublished: June 22, 2023
Published June 22, 2023 Viewed Cat Forward, Caroline Norrie, Stephanie Bramley, Liz Riley, James Shearer, Emily Finch, Glenn Stewart, Paul Fletcher, Jill Manthorpe, Heather Wardle, the harms of gambling in adult social care: The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 53, Issue 8, December 2023, Pages 3584-3607, https://doi. org/10. 1093/bjsw/bcad155 NAVBAR Mobile Search Filter Enter search term search Published June 22, 2023 Viewed The harm of gambling is the negative effect on gambling on individuals, family, local communities, and society (Wardle et al.) This includes economic harm, deterioration of health, and an increase in crimes. (Velleman and Orford, 2015). Gambling harm is a serious public health problem (Rogers, 2019; Wardle et al., 2019; Blank et al., 2021a), both individuals and people around them (affecting others). (Salonen et al; Blake et al., 2019a, b. < SPAN> Gambling has been disproportionately experienced among groups in a disadvantageous position, so Experts in ASC can identify the affected individuals and are exposed to the risk of gambling, including their families and friends. There are no "introductory" questions for "Introductory" questions to be used in the UK ASC to identify people in the UK. A scorping review to identify candidates was conducted by expert panel (n = 13), cognitive interviews (n = 20), and gambling problems. Paluous checks on the scale (n = 2. In the development process of questions, two questions suitable for testing in the ASC section of local government (LA) were created. These are (i) "Gambling influence. Do you feel that you are receiving it? These two questions were conducted by ASC practitioners in the UK LA.Cite
The harm of gambling is the negative effect on gambling on individuals, family, local communities, and society (Wardle et al.) This includes economic harm, deterioration of health, and increased crime. (Velleman and Orford, 2015). Gambling harm is a serious public health problem (Rogers, 2019; Wardle et al., 2019; Blank et al., 2021a), both individuals and people around them (affecting others). (Salonen et al; Blake et al., 2019a, B. The harm of gambling has experienced disadvantageous groups, so adult social care (adult social care ( ASC experts can identify the affected individuals and support people who are at risk of gambling, including families and friends. There is no "Introductory" question in the UK ASC to identify "Introductory" questions based on evidence for practitioners. Conducted scoring reviews by expert panel (n = 13), cognitive interviews (n = 20), and valid for gambling problems. Gender check (n = 2. The development process of questions created two questions suitable for testing in the ASC section of the local government (LA). These are (i) "Gambling influenced. Do you feel that it has a high level of fac e-t o-face, hig h-correlation value, and a valid value for gambling addiction. These two questions are being tested by ASC practitioners in the UK LA to evaluate whether they can actually be adopted.
The harm of gambling is the negative effect on gambling on individuals, family, local communities, and society (Wardle et al.) This includes economic harm, deterioration of health, and increased crime. (Velleman and Orford, 2015). Gambling harm is a serious public health problem (Rogers, 2019; Wardle et al., 2019; Blank et al., 2021a), both individuals and people around them (affecting others). Salonen et al., 2019a, b. In the UK, even with a modest estimate, disturbed gambling and problematic gambling affect 0. 7 % of the population (Connolly et al., 2018), and about typical gambling dependent. It is said to have an impact on the six people (goodwin et al., 2017; Castrén et al. However, "Introduction" evidence for use in social nursing (ASC, Forward et al., 2022) There are no questions based on others, and in many cases, the literature related to others is to measure the harm and identify others. (Dowling et ally, 2014; Landon et al. 2018; Castrén et al. 2021).Abstract
Gambling disorders include worse health outcomes (ekholm et al., 2018), other addictions (TACKETT et al., 2017), domestic violence (Dowling et al., 2014), and high suicide (Wardle) ET AL, gambling harm can occur to everyone, but the background of local government experts such as social workers often encounters, for example, people with mental hygiene, people with learning disabilities, and society. Treatment of gambling harm is effective, which affects isolated people (Bramley et al.), But it is often not required to be treated until a "crisis" situation (Di Nicola) et al.) < SPAN> In the UK, even with modest estimates, disturbed gambling and problematic gambling affect 0. 7 % of the population (Connolly et al., 2018), "typical" disturbed gambling It is said to have an effect on the other six people (goodwin et al., 2017; Castrén et al. No questions based on the "Introductory" evidence have been confirmed from the perspective of measuring the damage to find out, and is affected. Focusing on identifying people (Dowling et al., 2014; Landon et al., 2018; Castrén, 2021).
Introduction
Gambling disorders include worse health outcomes (ekholm et al., 2018), other addictions (TACKETT et al., 2017), domestic violence (Dowling et al., 2014), and high suicide (Wardle) ET AL, gambling harm can occur to everyone, but the background of local government experts such as social workers often encounters, for example, people with mental hygiene, people with learning disabilities, and society. Treatment of gambling harm is effective, which affects isolated people (Bramley et al.), But it is often not required to be treated until a "crisis" situation (Di Nicola) In the UK, even in the UK, disturbed gambling and problematic gambling affect 0. 7 % of the population (Connolly et al., 2018), "typical" disturbed gambling addiction. (Goodwin et al., 2017; Castrén et al., But in the introduction of adult nursing (ASC, Forward et al., 2022). No questions based on evidence have been identified from the perspective of measuring the damage to find outs, and some people are affected. Focusing on doing it (Dowling et al., 2014; Landon et al., 2018; Castrén, 2021).
Gambling disorders include worse health outcomes (ekholm et al., 2018), other addictions (TACKETT et al., 2017), domestic violence (Dowling et al., 2014), and high suicide (Wardle) ET AL, gambling harm can occur to everyone, but the background of local government experts such as social workers often encounters, for example, people with mental hygiene, people with learning disabilities, and society. Treatment of gambling harm is effective, which affects isolated people (Bramley et al.), But it is often not required to be treated until a "crisis" situation (Di Nicola) et al.)
The British government is aware of the need for gambling harm (Office for Health IMPROVEMENTS and INEQUALITIES, 2023). The Los Angeles Public Health Bureau has begun to work on gambling harm (see Gambling Commission, 2022), and the Royal Public Health Society (RSPH) has a campaign to reduce gambling stores and increase recognition of gambling harm (RSPH). , 2018). Increasingly, the integrated syste m-based approach to both the prevention and dealing of gambling harm is recommended (Johnstone and Regan, 2020), and LA is to work on problems in different departments such as licenses, public health, and ASC. It has been encouraged to deal with gambling harm using lenses of the whole parliament, and the latter will identify vulnerable people for gambling harm and provide guidance to support services (Local Government Association) , 2018). Alcohol and tobacco have been examined regularly, but no gambling has been inspected. In this study, we examined whether the questions about gambling could be incorporated in a way that considers the ASC framework. Gambling disorders have been pointed out among many ASC experts (Rassool, 2011; Rogers, 2013) and those affected by partners and families (Landon et al.)
ASC practitioners are reported to be aware of the importance of dealing with gambling harm in practice, but feel that they have insufficient knowledge and tools (Bramley et al. , 2019). Some LAs have introduced screening on gambling harm (Gambling Commission, 2022), but this is often based on the use of short clinical screening, and still has multiple questions that are troublesome in management. It is used and important is that it has not recorded the harm of other people's gambling. < SPAN> The British government recognizes the need for gambling harm (Office for Health Improvements and INEQUALITIES, 2023). The Los Angeles Public Health Bureau has begun to work on gambling harm (see Gambling Commission, 2022), and the Royal Public Health Society (RSPH) has a campaign to reduce gambling stores and increase recognition of gambling harm (RSPH). , 2018). Increasingly, the integrated syste m-based approach to both the prevention and dealing of gambling harm is recommended (Johnstone and Regan, 2020), and LA is to work on problems in different departments such as licenses, public health, and ASC. It has been encouraged to deal with gambling harm using lenses of the whole parliament, and the latter will identify vulnerable people for gambling harm and provide guidance to support services (Local Government Association) , 2018). Alcohol and tobacco have been examined regularly, but no gambling has been inspected. In this study, we examined whether the questions about gambling could be incorporated in a way that considers the ASC framework. Gambling disorders have been pointed out among many ASC experts (Rassool, 2011; Rogers, 2013) and those affected by partners and families (Landon et al.)
ASC practitioners are reported to be aware of the importance of dealing with gambling harm in practice, but feel that they have insufficient knowledge and tools (Bramley et al. , 2019). Some LAs have introduced screening on gambling harm (Gambling Commission, 2022), but this is often based on the use of short clinical screening, and still has multiple questions that are troublesome in management. It is used and important is that it has not recorded the harm of other people's gambling. The British government is aware of the need for gambling harm (Office for Health IMPROVEMENTS and INEQUALITIES, 2023). The Los Angeles Public Health Bureau has begun to work on gambling harm (see Gambling Commission, 2022), and the Royal Public Health Society (RSPH) has a campaign to reduce gambling stores and increase recognition of gambling harm (RSPH). , 2018). Increasingly, the integrated syste m-based approach to both the prevention and dealing of gambling harm is recommended (Johnstone and Regan, 2020), and LA is to work on problems in different departments such as licenses, public health, and ASC. It has been encouraged to deal with gambling harm using lenses of the whole parliament, and the latter will identify vulnerable people for gambling harm and provide guidance to support services (Local Government Association) , 2018). Alcohol and tobacco have been examined regularly, but no gambling has been inspected. In this study, we examined whether the questions about gambling could be incorporated in a way that considers the ASC framework. Gambling disorders have been pointed out among many ASC experts (Rassool, 2011; Rogers, 2013) and those affected by partners and families (Landon et al.)
ASC practitioners are reported to be aware of the importance of dealing with gambling harm in practice, but feel that they have insufficient knowledge and tools (Bramley et al. , 2019). Some LAs have introduced screening on gambling harm (Gambling Commission, 2022), but this is often based on the use of short clinical screening, and still has multiple questions that are troublesome in management. It is used and important is that it has not recorded the harm of other people's gambling.
Methods
The purpose of this study is to develop an introductory question on gambling harm, which is suitable for capturing both harm from others and gambling between others and gambling. This article describes the procedures conducted to create these questions, including the participation of the experienced person (PWLE) and the advisory group. The basic purpose of a wider range of projects is to test these questions in the three LAS ASC sections. The staff to ask questions will receive training on the options for gambling, including related stigma, and the options for those who disclose the harm of gambling to provide appropriate support. The results of the feasibility test will be announced elsewhere.
In order to develop an introductory question suitable for using ASC, we have increased the robustness and validity of the tested questions according to the standard method for the development (Macnamara and Collins). , 2011; Murray et al, 2017). We have also consulted with PEOPLE with Lived Experience (Pwle), led by our general participation partner, Betknowmore UK, a gambling support charity established by people who have lost gambling). This approach has confirmed that the questioner is convinced that the questioner can be asked or receives an ASC support.
Figure 1 shows the process.Figure 1
Question creation process
In this paper, we will report on stage 2 to 5. In the first stage (prompt evidence evaluation), 15 types of questions used in the second stage are identified (see: Forward et al.)Figure 2
Expert panels
Development of questions < Span> The purpose of this research is that in cooperation with the ASC practitioners, an introductory question on gambling harm is suitable for capturing both harm from others and gambling. It is to develop. This article describes the procedures conducted to create these questions, including the participation of the experienced person (PWLE) and the advisory group. The basic purpose of a wider range of projects is to test these questions in the three LAS ASC sections. The staff to ask questions will receive training on the options for gambling, including related stigma, and the options for those who disclose the harm of gambling to provide appropriate support. The results of the feasibility test will be announced elsewhere.
In order to develop an introductory question suitable for using ASC, we have increased the robustness and validity of the tested questions according to the standard method for the development (Macnamara and Collins). , 2011; Murray et al, 2017). We have also consulted with PEOPLE with Lived Experience (Pwle), led by our general participation partner, Betknowmore UK, a gambling support charity established by people who have lost gambling). This approach has confirmed that the questioner is convinced that the questioner can be asked or receives an ASC support.
Cognitive testing
Figure 1 shows the process.
Figure 1
Question creation process
In this paper, we will report on stage 2 to 5. In the first stage (prompt evidence evaluation), 15 types of questions used in the second stage are identified (see: Forward et al.)
Statistical testing
Figure 2
Test–retest
Development of questions This research is to develop an introductory question on gambling harm, which is suitable for collaborating with the ASC practitioners and the harm of others and the gambling of the person. It is. This article describes the procedures conducted to create these questions, including the participation of the experienced person (PWLE) and the advisory group. The basic purpose of a wider range of projects is to test these questions in the three LAS ASC sections. The staff to ask questions will receive training on the options for gambling, including related stigma, and the options for supporting those who disclose the harm of gambling. The results of the feasibility test will be announced elsewhere.
Online survey – Data collection
In order to develop an introductory question suitable for using ASC, we have increased the robustness and validity of the tested questions according to the standard method for the development (Macnamara and Collins). , 2011; Murray et al, 2017). We have also consulted with PEOPLE with Lived Experience (Pwle), led by our general participation partner, Betknowmore UK, a gambling support charity established by people who have lost gambling). This approach has confirmed that the questioner is convinced that the questioner can be asked or receives an ASC support.
Figure 1 shows the process.
Online Survey – Measures
Figure 1
- Question creation process
- In this paper, we will report on stage 2 to 5. In the first stage (prompt evidence evaluation), 15 types of questions used in the second stage are identified (see: Forward et al.)
- Figure 2
Development of questions
Two expert panel meetings (see Phase 1 in Figure 2) were held in September and October 2021. The first group included two questionnaire development experts and one academic. They were identified through the research group's network and recruited via email. The second panel included six ASC practitioners and three PWLES. LA practitioners were recruited by the managers of the three LAS participating in the study. PWLE participants were contacted by the PWLE leaders of the PWLE group in the study. The panel meetings were held essentially due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Discussions considered the question structure and its potential acceptability in ASC practice. Words and terminology that seemed inappropriate or outdated were discussed. The meetings were recorded and notes and recommendations were recorded by the first author. Meeting notes were entered into a data extraction spreadsheet and used for contextual analysis (Gale et al.
Data from these meetings were analysed by (C. N. and C. F.) to check for consistency of understanding and acceptance (Schwarz, 2007). Findings were discussed with the full research team and the advisory group to discuss agreements and differences between groups. A list of questions to guide cognitive testing (CT) was agreed by the research team.
CT involves an in-depth interview in which participants are asked probing questions, and this process is used to explore understanding of key concepts (Collins, 2015). It is based on four cognitive stages: comprehension, retrieval, decision and response (Tourangeau, 1984). CT interviews can be conducted using think-aloud or language detection techniques, or a combination of both as in this study (Collins, 2003).
CT was administered to five ASC service users, seven PWLEs and eight ASC practitioners. The survey was conducted among 100, 000 people, meeting questioners and respondents. Recruitment was via the partner LAS, the wider unit engagement and engagement team, and the principal investigator, respectively.
Online Survey – Analysis
The interview was actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible.
The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022).Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later.
| . | With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. < SPAN> Interviews were actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). |
|---|---|---|---|
| Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. The interview was actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). | Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. |
| No | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a wider PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | |||
| In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. | The data was collected by YouGov (online market research company) from an unnecessary online group with more than one million members living in the UK. Participants sent an invitation directly by e-mail by Yougov, and a reward was given a YouGov token (about 50 pesos equivalent to a voucher). 2, 079 adults over the age of 18 participated in the investigation. | Three questions were cited as a candidate to identify gambling losses. The following three: | Do you feel that if you or your familiar people gamble, that causes difficulties? |
| Do you think you are influenced by yourself or others' gambling? | Do you feel that if you or a familiar person gambling, it will afflict you? | The order of these three questions was randomly, and all the respondents were asked three questions. Yes, "Yes," I asked a follo w-up question to clarify whether it was due to my gambling, the gambling of others, or both. Using this data, (i) Whether you have had any difficulties, concerns, and influences by your own gambling for candidates for each question, (ii) Difficult/ concerns/ concerns by other people's gambling. I created two variables, whether or not I have experience. Each variable was coded with "yes (1)" or "no (0)". | Participants also entered nine issues gambling severity index (PGSI) (Ferris and Wynne, 2001). The items are calculated in 4-stage evaluation (0 "not at all", 1 "occasionally", "common", 3 "almost always"). = 0, 94). Participants were classified into no n-problem gambling (PGSI score 0), lo w-risk gambling (PGSI score 1 and 2), medium risk gambling (PGSI score 3-7), and gambling (PGSI & amp; Gt; score 8). |
| The experience of psychological distress was measured using a total of 10 Core-10, which consists of a total of 10 questions, three functional areas, and one risk item. The items are evaluated in five steps from "not at all" to "almost any case", and becomes a complex score (range 040). The score is categorized as healthy (0 to 5), low (6 to 10), mild (11-14), moderate (15-19), moderate to severe (20 to 24). (Barkham et al.) | Personally, Welbying was recorded using a harmonious office for national statistical measurement of the four elements of personal Welbying (2016). Participants evaluated their current life satisfaction. I evaluated the happiness that I felt worthwhile and felt yesterday, and how much anxiety I felt yesterday with a scale of 0 to 10. | Dangerous drinking was determined using a modified single alcoholic screening questionnaire (Canagasaby and Vinson, 2005). This is one event in the past year, using an alcoho l-use disorder identification test for the frequency of drinking in more than 8 credits for men and 6 units for women. If the score is 3 or more, he is a more risky drinker. We asked all participants in five levels of evaluation of whether they are currently smoking cigarettes and the overall health condition from "very good" to "very bad". | Frequently, the percentage of respondents who support each candidate's questions was examined (Table 1). Factors known to support each candidate's questions and the harm of gambling using a dual logistic regression (psychological pain, personal happiness, dangerous alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption, The relationship between general health, PGSI classification) was evaluated. In each return, the support of each candidate's questions was used as subordinate variables. No n-adjusted logistic regression was created by examining the support of each candidate question "for your own game" (Table 2) and the support of "for others' games" (Table 3). Finally, by comparing the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), negative ratio (NPV), and pgsi score 8 or higher regarding their own gambling questions. Calculated (Table 4). The missing data is minimal and excluded from the analysis. Yougov was calculated by Yougov to match the gained sample profile to the age, gender, and regional profile of the UK. |
| Table 1. | Approval of each obstacle query | Gambling caused difficulties. | Gambling affected the participants. |
| . | With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. < SPAN> Interviews were actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). |
|---|---|---|---|
| Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. The interview was actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). | Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. |
| No | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a wider PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | |||
| In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. | The data was collected by YouGov (online market research company) from an unnecessary online group with more than one million members living in the UK. Participants sent an invitation directly by e-mail by Yougov, and a reward was given a YouGov token (about 50 pesos equivalent to a voucher). 2, 079 adults over the age of 18 participated in the investigation. | Three questions were cited as a candidate to identify gambling losses. The following three: | Do you feel that if you or your familiar people gamble, that causes difficulties? |
| Do you think you are influenced by yourself or others' gambling? | Do you feel that if you or a familiar person gambling, it will afflict you? | The order of these three questions was randomly, and all the respondents were asked three questions. Yes, "Yes," I asked a follo w-up question to clarify whether it was due to my gambling, the gambling of others, or both. Using this data, (i) Whether you have had any difficulties, concerns, and influences by your own gambling for candidates for each question, (ii) Difficult/ concerns/ concerns by other people's gambling. I created two variables, whether or not I have experience. Each variable was coded with "yes (1)" or "no (0)". | Participants also entered nine issues gambling severity index (PGSI) (Ferris and Wynne, 2001). The items are calculated in 4-stage evaluation (0 "not at all", 1 "occasionally", "common", 3 "almost always"). = 0, 94). Participants were classified into no n-problem gambling (PGSI score 0), lo w-risk gambling (PGSI score 1 and 2), medium risk gambling (PGSI score 3-7), and gambling (PGSI & amp; Gt; score 8). |
| The experience of psychological distress was measured using a total of 10 Core-10, which consists of a total of 10 questions, three functional areas, and one risk item. The items are evaluated in five steps from "not at all" to "almost any case", and becomes a complex score (range 040). The score is categorized as healthy (0 to 5), low (6 to 10), mild (11-14), moderate (15-19), moderate to severe (20 to 24). (Barkham et al.) | Personally, Welbying was recorded using a harmonious office for national statistical measurement of the four elements of personal Welbying (2016). Participants evaluated their current life satisfaction. I evaluated the happiness that I felt worthwhile and felt yesterday, and how much anxiety I felt yesterday with a scale of 0 to 10. | Dangerous drinking was determined using a modified single alcoholic screening questionnaire (Canagasaby and Vinson, 2005). This is one event in the past year, using an alcoho l-use disorder identification test for the frequency of drinking in more than 8 credits for men and 6 units for women. If the score is 3 or more, he is a more risky drinker. We asked all participants in five levels of evaluation of whether they are currently smoking cigarettes and the overall health condition from "very good" to "very bad". | Frequently, the percentage of respondents who support each candidate's questions was examined (Table 1). Factors known to support each candidate's questions and the harm of gambling using a dual logistic regression (psychological pain, personal happiness, dangerous alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption, The relationship between general health, PGSI classification) was evaluated. In each return, the support of each candidate's questions was used as subordinate variables. No n-adjusted logistic regression was created by examining the support of each candidate question "for your own game" (Table 2) and the support of "for others' games" (Table 3). Finally, by comparing the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), negative ratio (NPV), and pgsi score 8 or higher regarding their own gambling questions. Calculated (Table 4). The missing data is minimal and excluded from the analysis. Yougov was calculated by Yougov to match the gained sample profile to the age, gender, and regional profile of the UK. |
| Table 1. | Approval of each obstacle query | Gambling caused difficulties. | Gambling affected the participants. |
Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later.
| . | With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. < SPAN> Interviews were actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). |
|---|---|---|---|
| Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. The interview was actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). | Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. |
| No | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a wider PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | |||
| In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. | The data was collected by YouGov (online market research company) from an unnecessary online group with more than one million members living in the UK. Participants sent an invitation directly by e-mail by Yougov, and a reward was given a YouGov token (about 50 pesos equivalent to a voucher). 2, 079 adults over the age of 18 participated in the investigation. | Three questions were cited as a candidate to identify gambling losses. The following three: | Do you feel that if you or your familiar people gamble, that causes difficulties? |
| Do you think you are influenced by yourself or others' gambling? | Do you feel that if you or a familiar person gambling, it will afflict you? | The order of these three questions was randomly, and all the respondents were asked three questions. Yes, "Yes," I asked a follo w-up question to clarify whether it was due to my gambling, the gambling of others, or both. Using this data, (i) Whether you have had any difficulties, concerns, and influences by your own gambling for candidates for each question, (ii) Difficult/ concerns/ concerns by other people's gambling. I created two variables, whether or not I have experience. Each variable was coded with "yes (1)" or "no (0)". | Participants also entered nine issues gambling severity index (PGSI) (Ferris and Wynne, 2001). The items are calculated in 4-stage evaluation (0 "not at all", 1 "occasionally", "common", 3 "almost always"). = 0, 94). Participants were classified into no n-problem gambling (PGSI score 0), lo w-risk gambling (PGSI score 1 and 2), medium risk gambling (PGSI score 3-7), and gambling (PGSI & amp; Gt; score 8). |
| The experience of psychological distress was measured using a total of 10 Core-10, which consists of a total of 10 questions, three functional areas, and one risk item. The items are evaluated in five steps from "not at all" to "almost any case", and becomes a complex score (range 040). The score is categorized as healthy (0 to 5), low (6 to 10), mild (11-14), moderate (15-19), moderate to severe (20 to 24). (Barkham et al.) | Personally, Welbying was recorded using a harmonious office for national statistical measurement of the four elements of personal Welbying (2016). Participants evaluated their current life satisfaction. I evaluated the happiness that I felt worthwhile and felt yesterday, and how much anxiety I felt yesterday with a scale of 0 to 10. | Dangerous drinking was determined using a modified single alcoholic screening questionnaire (Canagasaby and Vinson, 2005). This is one event in the past year, using an alcoho l-use disorder identification test for the frequency of drinking in more than 8 credits for men and 6 units for women. If the score is 3 or more, he is a more risky drinker. We asked all participants in five levels of evaluation of whether they are currently smoking cigarettes and the overall health condition from "very good" to "very bad". | Frequently, the percentage of respondents who support each candidate's questions was examined (Table 1). Factors known to support each candidate's questions and the harm of gambling using a dual logistic regression (psychological pain, personal happiness, dangerous alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption, The relationship between general health, PGSI classification) was evaluated. In each return, the support of each candidate's questions was used as subordinate variables. No n-adjusted logistic regression was created by examining the support of each candidate question "for your own game" (Table 2) and the support of "for others' games" (Table 3). Finally, by comparing the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), negative ratio (NPV), and pgsi score 8 or higher regarding their own gambling questions. Calculated (Table 4). The missing data is minimal and excluded from the analysis. Yougov was calculated by Yougov to match the gained sample profile to the age, gender, and regional profile of the UK. |
| Table 1. | Approval of each obstacle query | Gambling caused difficulties. | Gambling affected the participants. |
| . | With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. < SPAN> Interviews were actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). |
|---|---|---|---|
| Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a widespread PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. The interview was actually conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The transcribed data was added to the spreadsheet for analysis. Participants were asked to ask, consider, and discuss the thinking processes when they answered each question. He performed Providing Quest to explore further areas, such as understanding, searching and searching for information, and reasons why the participants answered it. The interview was held in a hal f-structured format, giving it flexible. | The data is contextual analysis (Gale et al. This allows you to compare cas e-b y-case cases between themes. The analysis was conducted by CF and CN reviewed. The survey results were discussed at the general meeting of the research team (). March 2022). | Following the CT Phase, the remaining three questions were tested to test retest tests to investigate over time. This was performed by introducing the participants (n = 20) by telephone and repeating this two weeks later. |
| No | |||
| With 80%of the detection power (Bujang and Baharum, 2017), the minimum sample size required to get a 0. 7 correlation is estimated to be 20 social care users over the age of 18. These were recruited by the driver through e-mails distributed to the LAS partner, a healthwatch organization (a legal organization with local communities and citizens participating in the service), and a wider PPIE group. Participants were asked for candidate questions in T1 (n = 20), and used the question 7 to 15 days (T2) (n = 20). For the two participants, the T2 data was collected 30 days after T1 due to the limited time available. The data was collected in the phone interview. The answer to each question was recorded in one spreadsheet at a time. Koen's kappa was used to verify the reliability of the answer. The analysis was performed in Stata version 15. | |||
| In order to evaluate the performance of new questions from other indicators related to gambling harm and relevance to indicators related to health and welfare, including candidate questions for adults over the age of 18 Ta. | The data was collected by YouGov (online market research company) from an unnecessary online group with more than one million members living in the UK. Participants sent an invitation directly by e-mail by Yougov, and a reward was given a YouGov token (about 50 pesos equivalent to a voucher). 2, 079 adults over the age of 18 participated in the investigation. | Three questions were cited as a candidate to identify gambling losses. The following three: | Do you feel that if you or your familiar people gamble, that causes difficulties? |
| Do you think you are influenced by yourself or others' gambling? | Do you feel that if you or a familiar person gambling, it will afflict you? | The order of these three questions was randomly, and all the respondents were asked three questions. Yes, "Yes," I asked a follo w-up question to clarify whether it was due to my gambling, the gambling of others, or both. Using this data, (i) Whether you have had any difficulties, concerns, and influences by your own gambling for candidates for each question, (ii) Difficult/ concerns/ concerns by other people's gambling. I created two variables, whether or not I have experience. Each variable was coded with "yes (1)" or "no (0)". | Participants also entered nine issues gambling severity index (PGSI) (Ferris and Wynne, 2001). The items are calculated in 4-stage evaluation (0 "not at all", 1 "occasionally", "common", 3 "almost always"). = 0, 94). Participants were classified into no n-problem gambling (PGSI score 0), lo w-risk gambling (PGSI score 1 and 2), medium risk gambling (PGSI score 3-7), and gambling (PGSI & amp; Gt; score 8). |
| The experience of psychological distress was measured using a total of 10 Core-10, which consists of a total of 10 questions, three functional areas, and one risk item. The items are evaluated in five steps from "not at all" to "almost any case", and becomes a complex score (range 040). The score is categorized as healthy (0 to 5), low (6 to 10), mild (11-14), moderate (15-19), moderate to severe (20 to 24). (Barkham et al.) | Personally, Welbying was recorded using a harmonious office for national statistical measurement of the four elements of personal Welbying (2016). Participants evaluated their current life satisfaction. I evaluated the happiness that I felt worthwhile and felt yesterday, and how much anxiety I felt yesterday with a scale of 0 to 10. | Dangerous drinking was determined using a modified single alcoholic screening questionnaire (Canagasaby and Vinson, 2005). This is one event in the past year, using an alcoho l-use disorder identification test for the frequency of drinking in more than 8 credits for men and 6 units for women. If the score is 3 or more, he is a more risky drinker. We asked all participants in five levels of evaluation of whether they are currently smoking cigarettes and the overall health condition from "very good" to "very bad". | Frequently, the percentage of respondents who support each candidate's questions was examined (Table 1). Factors known to support each candidate's questions and the harm of gambling using a dual logistic regression (psychological pain, personal happiness, dangerous alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption, The relationship between general health, PGSI classification) was evaluated. In each return, the support of each candidate's questions was used as subordinate variables. No n-adjusted logistic regression was created by examining the support of each candidate question "for your own game" (Table 2) and the support of "for others' games" (Table 3). Finally, by comparing the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), negative ratio (NPV), and pgsi score 8 or higher regarding their own gambling questions. Calculated (Table 4). The missing data is minimal and excluded from the analysis. Yougov was calculated by Yougov to match the gained sample profile to the age, gender, and regional profile of the UK. |
| Table 1. | Approval of each obstacle query | Gambling caused difficulties. | Gambling affected the participants. |
Answer to harmful questions
| . | . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13. 1 (272) | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | ||
| 65, 1 (123) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | |||||
| 7. 4 (14) | 7. 1 (9) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 9, 6 (26) | I don't know | 16. 4 (31) | 7, 9 (10) | 17, 6 (48) | Table 2. | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Gambling caused difficulties. | |
| Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused concerns. | Ν (%). | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | |
| 95% CI. | Pgsi | P | P | P | Unsubled gambling (PGSI score = 0) | 1826 (88. 2) | Low risk gambling (PSGI score = 1-2) | |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 0, 96 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | Medium risk gambling (PGSI score = 3-7) | 63 (3, 0) | 18, 5-8 | 9. 19-48. 99 | 76, 70 | 42, 75-228, 70 | 24. 24 | |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | Problem gambling (PGSI score = 8 or more) | 49 (2. 4) | 67, 58 | 28, 74-155, 52 | 306, 82 | 163, 64-872, 71 | 142, 52 | |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Core-12 points (psychological pain) | P | P | P | health | 591 (28, 7) | low | |
| 557 (27. 1) | 0, 53 | 0, 13-2, 15 | 0, 63 | 0, 15-2, 66 | 0, 92 | 0, 31-2, 74 | mild | |
| 377 (18. 3) | 2. 39 | 0, 84-6, 77 | 1, 89 | 0, 57-6, 25 | 2. 06 | 0, 76-5, 57 | average | |
| 245 (11. 9) | ||||||||
| 2. 49 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 1. 70-14. 82 | |||||
| 4, 65 | 1, 83-11, 80 | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | 8. 17 | 2, 75-24, 27 | |
| 5. 19 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Strict | 135 (6. 6) | |||||
| 3, 78 | 1. 13-12. 56 | 5. 48 | 1, 65-18, 22 | 4. 62 | 1, 59-13, 41 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Life satisfaction | |
| P | P | p = 0, 23 | Satisfaction score (maximum score, highest satisfaction) | |||||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0, 86 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 86 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | 0, 93 | 0, 06-1, 05 | Whether life makes sense | |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | 0, 91 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0, 90 | 0, 06-1, 02 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 08 | Happiness | |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0. 50 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | Happiness (higher scores indicate higher happiness) | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 0, 99 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 09 | 0, 98 | 0, 06-1, 10 | Concerns | π. | π. | |
| π. | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1. 23 | 5911 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 25 | 0. 07-1. 39 | Alcohol intake | p = 0. 31 | π. | p = 0. 83 | No high-risk drinking | |
| 1684 (81. 0) | High-risk alcohol intake | 395 (19. 0) | p = 0, 23 | |||||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 2. 08 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 1. 32 | 0. 69-2. 55 | Smoking status | π. | π. | π. | Smoking | |
| 261 (12. 6) | Non-smoking | 1818 (87. 4) | 0. 31 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0. 29 | 0. 15-0. 56 | 0. 38 | |
| . | . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13. 1 (272) | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | ||
| 65, 1 (123) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | |||||
| 7. 4 (14) | 7. 1 (9) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 9, 6 (26) | I don't know | 16. 4 (31) | 7, 9 (10) | 17, 6 (48) | Table 2. | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Gambling caused difficulties. | |
| Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused concerns. | Ν (%). | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | |
| 95% CI. | Pgsi | P | P | P | Unsubled gambling (PGSI score = 0) | 1826 (88. 2) | Low risk gambling (PSGI score = 1-2) | |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 0, 96 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | Medium risk gambling (PGSI score = 3-7) | 63 (3, 0) | 18, 5-8 | 9. 19-48. 99 | 76, 70 | 42, 75-228, 70 | 24. 24 | |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | Problem gambling (PGSI score = 8 or more) | 49 (2. 4) | 67, 58 | 28, 74-155, 52 | 306, 82 | 163, 64-872, 71 | 142, 52 | |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Core-12 points (psychological pain) | P | P | P | health | 591 (28, 7) | low | |
| 557 (27. 1) | 0, 53 | 0, 13-2, 15 | 0, 63 | 0, 15-2, 66 | 0, 92 | 0, 31-2, 74 | mild | |
| 377 (18. 3) | 2. 39 | 0, 84-6, 77 | 1, 89 | 0, 57-6, 25 | 2. 06 | 0, 76-5, 57 | average | |
| 245 (11. 9) | ||||||||
| 2. 49 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 1. 70-14. 82 | |||||
| 4, 65 | 1, 83-11, 80 | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | 8. 17 | 2, 75-24, 27 | |
| 5. 19 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Strict | 135 (6. 6) | |||||
| 3, 78 | 1. 13-12. 56 | 5. 48 | 1, 65-18, 22 | 4. 62 | 1, 59-13, 41 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Life satisfaction | |
| P | P | p = 0, 23 | Satisfaction score (maximum score, highest satisfaction) | |||||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0, 86 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 86 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | 0, 93 | 0, 06-1, 05 | Whether life makes sense | |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | 0, 91 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0, 90 | 0, 06-1, 02 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 08 | Happiness | |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0. 50 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | Happiness (higher scores indicate higher happiness) | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 0, 99 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 09 | 0, 98 | 0, 06-1, 10 | Concerns | π. | π. | |
| π. | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1. 23 | 5911 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 25 | 0. 07-1. 39 | Alcohol intake | p = 0. 31 | π. | p = 0. 83 | No high-risk drinking | |
| 1684 (81. 0) | High-risk alcohol intake | 395 (19. 0) | p = 0, 23 | |||||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 2. 08 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 1. 32 | 0. 69-2. 55 | Smoking status | π. | π. | π. | Smoking | |
| 261 (12. 6) | Non-smoking | 1818 (87. 4) | 0. 31 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0. 29 | 0. 15-0. 56 | 0. 38 | |
Answer to harmful questions
| . | . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13. 1 (272) | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | ||
| 65, 1 (123) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | |||||
| 7. 4 (14) | 7. 1 (9) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 9, 6 (26) | I don't know | 16. 4 (31) | 7, 9 (10) | 17, 6 (48) | Table 2. | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Gambling caused difficulties. | |
| Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused concerns. | Ν (%). | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | |
| 95% CI. | Pgsi | P | P | P | Unsubled gambling (PGSI score = 0) | 1826 (88. 2) | Low risk gambling (PSGI score = 1-2) | |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 0, 96 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | Medium risk gambling (PGSI score = 3-7) | 63 (3, 0) | 18, 5-8 | 9. 19-48. 99 | 76, 70 | 42, 75-228, 70 | 24. 24 | |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | Problem gambling (PGSI score = 8 or more) | 49 (2. 4) | 67, 58 | 28, 74-155, 52 | 306, 82 | 163, 64-872, 71 | 142, 52 | |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Core-12 points (psychological pain) | P | P | P | health | 591 (28, 7) | low | |
| 557 (27. 1) | 0, 53 | 0, 13-2, 15 | 0, 63 | 0, 15-2, 66 | 0, 92 | 0, 31-2, 74 | mild | |
| 377 (18. 3) | 2. 39 | 0, 84-6, 77 | 1, 89 | 0, 57-6, 25 | 2. 06 | 0, 76-5, 57 | average | |
| 245 (11. 9) | ||||||||
| 2. 49 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 1. 70-14. 82 | |||||
| 4, 65 | 1, 83-11, 80 | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | 8. 17 | 2, 75-24, 27 | |
| 5. 19 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Strict | 135 (6. 6) | |||||
| 3, 78 | 1. 13-12. 56 | 5. 48 | 1, 65-18, 22 | 4. 62 | 1, 59-13, 41 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Life satisfaction | |
| P | P | p = 0, 23 | Satisfaction score (maximum score, highest satisfaction) | |||||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0, 86 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 86 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | 0, 93 | 0, 06-1, 05 | Whether life makes sense | |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | 0, 91 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0, 90 | 0, 06-1, 02 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 08 | Happiness | |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0. 50 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | Happiness (higher scores indicate higher happiness) | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 0, 99 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 09 | 0, 98 | 0, 06-1, 10 | Concerns | π. | π. | |
| π. | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1. 23 | 5911 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 25 | 0. 07-1. 39 | Alcohol intake | p = 0. 31 | π. | p = 0. 83 | No high-risk drinking | |
| 1684 (81. 0) | High-risk alcohol intake | 395 (19. 0) | p = 0, 23 | |||||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 2. 08 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 1. 32 | 0. 69-2. 55 | Smoking status | π. | π. | π. | Smoking | |
| 261 (12. 6) | Non-smoking | 1818 (87. 4) | 0. 31 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0. 29 | 0. 15-0. 56 | 0. 38 | |
| . | . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13. 1 (272) | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | ||
| 65, 1 (123) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.001 | |||||
| 7. 4 (14) | 7. 1 (9) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 9, 6 (26) | I don't know | 16. 4 (31) | 7, 9 (10) | 17, 6 (48) | Table 2. | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Gambling caused difficulties. | |
| Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused concerns. | Ν (%). | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | 95% CI. | Ή. | |
| 95% CI. | Pgsi | P | P | P | Unsubled gambling (PGSI score = 0) | 1826 (88. 2) | Low risk gambling (PSGI score = 1-2) | |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 0, 96 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | Medium risk gambling (PGSI score = 3-7) | 63 (3, 0) | 18, 5-8 | 9. 19-48. 99 | 76, 70 | 42, 75-228, 70 | 24. 24 | |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | Problem gambling (PGSI score = 8 or more) | 49 (2. 4) | 67, 58 | 28, 74-155, 52 | 306, 82 | 163, 64-872, 71 | 142, 52 | |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Core-12 points (psychological pain) | P | P | P | health | 591 (28, 7) | low | |
| 557 (27. 1) | 0, 53 | 0, 13-2, 15 | 0, 63 | 0, 15-2, 66 | 0, 92 | 0, 31-2, 74 | mild | |
| 377 (18. 3) | 2. 39 | 0, 84-6, 77 | 1, 89 | 0, 57-6, 25 | 2. 06 | 0, 76-5, 57 | average | |
| 245 (11. 9) | ||||||||
| 2. 49 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 1. 70-14. 82 | |||||
| 4, 65 | 1, 83-11, 80 | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | Moderate to severe | 154 (7, 5) | 8. 17 | 2, 75-24, 27 | |
| 5. 19 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Strict | 135 (6. 6) | |||||
| 3, 78 | 1. 13-12. 56 | 5. 48 | 1, 65-18, 22 | 4. 62 | 1, 59-13, 41 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | Life satisfaction | |
| P | P | p = 0, 23 | Satisfaction score (maximum score, highest satisfaction) | |||||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0, 86 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 86 | Unconducted odds ratio to questions about sel f-harm. | 0, 93 | 0, 06-1, 05 | Whether life makes sense | |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | 0, 91 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0, 90 | 0, 06-1, 02 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 08 | Happiness | |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0. 50 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | Happiness (higher scores indicate higher happiness) | |||||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 0, 99 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 96 | 0, 06-1, 09 | 0, 98 | 0, 06-1, 10 | Concerns | π. | π. | |
| π. | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1. 23 | 5911 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 25 | 0. 07-1. 39 | Alcohol intake | p = 0. 31 | π. | p = 0. 83 | No high-risk drinking | |
| 1684 (81. 0) | High-risk alcohol intake | 395 (19. 0) | p = 0, 23 | |||||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 2. 08 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 1. 32 | 0. 69-2. 55 | Smoking status | π. | π. | π. | Smoking | |
| 261 (12. 6) | Non-smoking | 1818 (87. 4) | 0. 31 | 0, 06-1, 04 | 0. 29 | 0. 15-0. 56 | 0. 38 | |
1. 03
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | |||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | p = 0, 16 | p = 0, 24 | p = 0, 62 | Happiness (higher score, higher happiness) | 8. 17 | 0, 04-1, 14 |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | 0, 05-1, 17 | 1. 02 | 1818 (87. 4) | Concerns | p | p |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Anxiety (higher score, higher anxiety) | 1. 08 | 0, 03-1, 15 | 1. 09 | 0, 04-1, 18 | 1. 11 |
| 557 (27. 1) | Alcohol use | p = 0, 12 | p = 0, 15 | p = 0, 27 | No high-risk alcohol consumption | High-risk alcohol consumption |
| 377 (18. 3) | 0, 17-1, 10 | 0, 62 | 0, 20-1, 18 | 0, 80 | 0, 16-1, 19 | Smoking status |
| p = 0, 22 | ||||||
| 2. 49 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| 4, 65 | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition |
| 5. 19 | p = 0, 34 | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | |||
| 3, 78 | 1. 39 | General health condition | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 32-2, 07 | 1. 39 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| P | 1. 67 | 0, 46-2, 86 | 1. 58 | |||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 32-2, 15 | 0. 18-1. 19 | Independent odds ratio of "damage caused by other people's questions" | 0, 19-1, 36 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | p = 0, 16 | 95% CI. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | π. | π. | π. |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0, 45 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition | p = 0, 09 |
| π. | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | Report | |||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 27 | 0, 32-2, 07 | Moderate to severe | 0, 19-1, 53 | Bad/ very bad | 1. 67 |
| 0, 46-2, 86 | Strict | 0. 55-3. 11 | 1. 35 | |||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 0, 05-1, 17 | Difficulty due to gambling | Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused anxiety. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | 0, 31 |
| 261 (12. 6) | 0, 53 | Specificity | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | PPV |
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | |||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | p = 0, 16 | p = 0, 24 | p = 0, 62 | Happiness (higher score, higher happiness) | 8. 17 | 0, 04-1, 14 |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | 0, 05-1, 17 | 1. 02 | 1818 (87. 4) | Concerns | p | p |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Anxiety (higher score, higher anxiety) | 1. 08 | 0, 03-1, 15 | 1. 09 | 0, 04-1, 18 | 1. 11 |
| 557 (27. 1) | Alcohol use | p = 0, 12 | p = 0, 15 | p = 0, 27 | No high-risk alcohol consumption | High-risk alcohol consumption |
| 377 (18. 3) | 0, 17-1, 10 | 0, 62 | 0, 20-1, 18 | 0, 80 | 0, 16-1, 19 | Smoking status |
| p = 0, 22 | ||||||
| 2. 49 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| 4, 65 | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition |
| 5. 19 | p = 0, 34 | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | |||
| 3, 78 | 1. 39 | General health condition | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 32-2, 07 | 1. 39 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| P | 1. 67 | 0, 46-2, 86 | 1. 58 | |||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 32-2, 15 | 0. 18-1. 19 | Independent odds ratio of "damage caused by other people's questions" | 0, 19-1, 36 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | p = 0, 16 | 95% CI. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | π. | π. | π. |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0, 45 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition | p = 0, 09 |
| π. | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | Report | |||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 27 | 0, 32-2, 07 | Moderate to severe | 0, 19-1, 53 | Bad/ very bad | 1. 67 |
| 0, 46-2, 86 | Strict | 0. 55-3. 11 | 1. 35 | |||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 0, 05-1, 17 | Difficulty due to gambling | Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused anxiety. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | 0, 31 |
| 261 (12. 6) | 0, 53 | Specificity | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | PPV |
1. 03
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | |||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | p = 0, 16 | p = 0, 24 | p = 0, 62 | Happiness (higher score, higher happiness) | 8. 17 | 0, 04-1, 14 |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | 0, 05-1, 17 | 1. 02 | 1818 (87. 4) | Concerns | p | p |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Anxiety (higher score, higher anxiety) | 1. 08 | 0, 03-1, 15 | 1. 09 | 0, 04-1, 18 | 1. 11 |
| 557 (27. 1) | Alcohol use | p = 0, 12 | p = 0, 15 | p = 0, 27 | No high-risk alcohol consumption | High-risk alcohol consumption |
| 377 (18. 3) | 0, 17-1, 10 | 0, 62 | 0, 20-1, 18 | 0, 80 | 0, 16-1, 19 | Smoking status |
| p = 0, 22 | ||||||
| 2. 49 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| 4, 65 | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition |
| 5. 19 | p = 0, 34 | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | |||
| 3, 78 | 1. 39 | General health condition | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 32-2, 07 | 1. 39 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| P | 1. 67 | 0, 46-2, 86 | 1. 58 | |||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 32-2, 15 | 0. 18-1. 19 | Independent odds ratio of "damage caused by other people's questions" | 0, 19-1, 36 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | p = 0, 16 | 95% CI. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | π. | π. | π. |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0, 45 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition | p = 0, 09 |
| π. | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | Report | |||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 27 | 0, 32-2, 07 | Moderate to severe | 0, 19-1, 53 | Bad/ very bad | 1. 67 |
| 0, 46-2, 86 | Strict | 0. 55-3. 11 | 1. 35 | |||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 0, 05-1, 17 | Difficulty due to gambling | Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused anxiety. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | 0, 31 |
| 261 (12. 6) | 0, 53 | Specificity | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | PPV |
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling | Which lesion is related to | My gambling |
| 133 (6. 4) | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | |||
| 4, 66-28, 81 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 99-7, 32 | p = 0, 16 | p = 0, 24 | p = 0, 62 | Happiness (higher score, higher happiness) | 8. 17 | 0, 04-1, 14 |
| 10. 60-57. 13 | 0, 05-1, 17 | 1. 02 | 1818 (87. 4) | Concerns | p | p |
| 55, 92-307, 49 | Anxiety (higher score, higher anxiety) | 1. 08 | 0, 03-1, 15 | 1. 09 | 0, 04-1, 18 | 1. 11 |
| 557 (27. 1) | Alcohol use | p = 0, 12 | p = 0, 15 | p = 0, 27 | No high-risk alcohol consumption | High-risk alcohol consumption |
| 377 (18. 3) | 0, 17-1, 10 | 0, 62 | 0, 20-1, 18 | 0, 80 | 0, 16-1, 19 | Smoking status |
| p = 0, 22 | ||||||
| 2. 49 | 1. 90-14. 17 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| 4, 65 | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition |
| 5. 19 | p = 0, 34 | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | |||
| 3, 78 | 1. 39 | General health condition | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 32-2, 07 | 1. 39 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| P | 1. 67 | 0, 46-2, 86 | 1. 58 | |||
| Average score: 6, 5 (SD: 2, 2) | 0. 18-1. 19 | 0, 32-2, 15 | 0. 18-1. 19 | Independent odds ratio of "damage caused by other people's questions" | 0, 19-1, 36 | 0, 19-1, 53 |
| p = 0, 17 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.05 | 60, 3 (76)< 0.01 | |||
| Mean score: 6. 7 points (SD: 2. 3 points) | p = 0, 16 | 95% CI. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | π. | π. | π. |
| p = 0, 86 | p = 0, 45 | Smoke | Don't smoke | |||
| Mean score: 6. 3 (SD: 2. 3) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0, 07-1, 14 | 0, 86 | 0, 27-1, 61 | 0, 89 | 0, 19-1, 36 | General health condition | p = 0, 09 |
| π. | p = 0, 59 | Very good/ good | Report | |||
| 0, 08-1, 40 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0. 07-1. 38 | 1. 27 | 0, 32-2, 07 | Moderate to severe | 0, 19-1, 53 | Bad/ very bad | 1. 67 |
| 0, 46-2, 86 | Strict | 0. 55-3. 11 | 1. 35 | |||
| 0. 69-3. 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1. 06-4. 07 | 0, 05-1, 17 | Difficulty due to gambling | Gambling affected the participants. | Gambling caused anxiety. | Core-12 score (psychological pain) | 0, 31 |
| 261 (12. 6) | 0, 53 | Specificity | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | 0, 99 | PPV |
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. 07-1. 39 | 63 (3, 0) | ||
| 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | |
| 0, 89 | |||
| 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 |
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. 07-1. 39 | 63 (3, 0) | ||
| 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | |
| 0, 89 | |||
| 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 |
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. 07-1. 39 | 63 (3, 0) | ||
| 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | |
| 0, 89 | |||
| 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 |
| . | yes | 9. 1 (189) | 6. 1 (126) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. 07-1. 39 | 63 (3, 0) | ||
| 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | 0, 06-0, 98 | |
| 0, 89 | |||
| 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 | 0, 06-1, 05 |
Findings
Findings—expert panel meetings
Findings—cognitive testing
- Question creation process
- In this paper, we will report on stage 2 to 5. In the first stage (prompt evidence evaluation), 15 types of questions used in the second stage are identified (see: Forward et al.)
- Figure 2
Findings—test–retest reliability
Findings—validity testing with YouGov survey
- In this paper, we will report on stage 2 to 5. In the first stage (prompt evidence evaluation), 15 types of questions used in the second stage are identified (see: Forward et al.)
- Figure 2
Discussion
Limitations
Conclusion
- In this paper, we will report on stage 2 to 5. In the first stage (prompt evidence evaluation), 15 types of questions used in the second stage are identified (see: Forward et al.)
- Figure 2
Ethical considerations
Acknowledgements
Funding
Authors’ contributions
Adult social care services have been identified as a setting in which screening for gambling‐related harms is suitable and desirable. To achieve this, a tool is. Gambling harms are disproportionately experienced among disadvantaged groups and as such, adult social care (ASC) practitioners are well-placed to identify. Gambling-Related Harm. https Gambling Harms in Adult Social Care: Developing an 'Introductory' Question to Identify Gambling Harms Among Service Users.
accepted