| Literature DB >> 29110644 |
Seema Mutti-Packer1, David C Hodgins2, Robert J Williams3, Barna Konkolÿ Thege4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little research has examined the potential protective influence of religiosity against problem gambling; a common addictive behavior, and one with a host of associated negative health and social outcomes. The aims of this study were to examine (1) the potential longitudinal association between religiosity and problem gambling among adults and (2) the potential moderating role of gender on this association.Entities:
Keywords: Adults; Latent growth curve modeling; Longitudinal; Problem gambling; Religion; Religious affiliation; Trajectory of gambling
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29110644 PMCID: PMC5674844 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-017-1518-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Baseline sample characteristics
| Overall | Males | Females | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age [M (SD)] | 46.1 (14.1) | 47.1 (14.7) | 45.2 (13.6) |
| Overall religiositya [M (SD)] | 12.1 (7.0) | 10.8 (7.1) | 13.1 (6.6) |
| Past year religious service attendanceb [N (%)] | |||
| Missing | 162 (3.9) | 103 (5.5) | 59 (2.6) |
| Not at all | 1654 (41.8) | 758 (43.0) | 896 (40.8) |
| Low | 1307 (33.1) | 568 (32.2) | 739 (33.7) |
| Moderate | 462 (11.7) | 189 (10.7) | 273 (12.4) |
| High | 536 (13.5) | 249 (14.1) | 287 (13.1) |
| Religious affiliation [N (%)] | |||
| Missing | 1 (0.0) | – | 1 (0.0) |
| Catholic | 860 (29.0) | 391 (22.3) | 469 (22.5) |
| Protestant | 2269 (55.1) | 977 (55.8) | 1292 (62.1) |
| Agnostic/atheist | 331 (8.0) | 195 (11.1) | 136 (6.5) |
| Otherc | 372 (9.0) | 189 (10.8) | 183 (8.8) |
| Prefer not to say | 288 (7.0) | 115 (6.2) | 173 (7.7) |
| Education [N (%)] | |||
| Less than high school | 462 (11.2) | 236 (12.6) | 226 (10.0) |
| High school | 823 (20.0) | 355 (19.0) | 468 (20.8) |
| Some post-secondary or technical school | 1106 (26.8) | 561 (30.0) | 545 (24.2) |
| Completed college/university or more | 1730 (42.0) | 715 (38.3) | 1015 (45.0) |
| Annual household incomed [N (%)] | |||
| $0 to $39,999.00 | 1402 (34.0) | 557 (29.8) | 845 (37.5) |
| $40,000.00 to $79,999.00 | 1716 (41.6) | 793 (42.5) | 923 (40.9) |
| $80,000.00 or more | 1003 (24.3) | 517 (27.7) | 486 (21.6) |
| Marital status [N (%)] | |||
| Never married | 491 (11.9) | 236 (12.6) | 255 (11.3) |
| Married or common-law | 2944 (71.4) | 1387 (74.3) | 1557 (69.1) |
| Divorced/separated/widowed | 686 (16.6) | 244 (13.1) | 442 (19.6) |
aItems 2–8 of the Rohrbaugh Jessor Religiosity Scale
bLow = categories “once” and “2 to 5 times” in the past year; Moderate = categories “6 to 10 times” and “once or twice a month”; High: categories “once a week” and “more than once a week”
cOther’ religious affiliation includes Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and other affiliations
d‘Unsure’ responses (n = 129) were replaced by imputed values: if income stable in next 2 data waves then replaced with that value; elsewhere replaced with the mean of values from all other survey waves
Gambling severity categories and mean scores (SD) based on the Problem and Pathological Gambling Measure (PPGM) across the five data waves
| Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 4 | Time 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | |||||
| Sample size at given data wave | 4120 | 3939 | 3901 | 3829 | 3799 |
| Non-gambler [N (%)] | 309 (7.5) | 298 (7.6) | 363 (9.3) | 423 (11.0) | 406 (10.7) |
| Recreational gambler [N (%)] | 3111 (75.5) | 3092 (78.5) | 3034 (77.8) | 2978 (77.8) | 2951 (77.7) |
| At-risk gambler [N (%)] | 564 (13.7) | 436 (11.1) | 401 (10.3) | 324 (8.5) | 365 (9.6) |
| Problem/pathological gambler [N (%)] | 136 (3.3) | 113 (2.9) | 103 (2.6) | 104 (2.7) | 77 (2.0) |
| PPGM scorea [M (SD)] | 1.13 (0.57) | 1.09 (0.54) | 1.06 (0.54) | 1.03 (0.55) | 1.03 (0.53) |
| Males | |||||
| Sample size at given data wave | 1867 | 1770 | 1742 | 1713 | 1690 |
| Non-gambler [N (%)] | 135 (7.2) | 127 (7.2) | 165 (9.5) | 194 (11.3) | 186 (11.0) |
| Recreational gambler [N (%)] | 1385 (74.2) | 1376 (77.7) | 1321 (75.8) | 1322 (77.2) | 1278 (75.6) |
| At-risk gambler [N (%)] | 281 (15.1) | 222 (12.5) | 215 (12.3) | 149 (8.7) | 187 (11.1) |
| Problem/pathological gambler [N (%)] | 65 (3.5) | 45 (2.5) | 41 (2.4) | 48 (2.8) | 39 (2.3) |
| PPGM scorea [M (SD)] | 1.15 (0.58) | 1.10 (0.54) | 1.08 (0.55) | 1.03 (0.56) | 1.05 (0.56) |
| Females | |||||
| Sample size at given data wave | 2253 | 2169 | 2159 | 2116 | 2109 |
| Non-gambler [N (%)] | 174 (7.7) | 171 (7.9) | 198 (9.2) | 229 (10.8) | 220 (10.4) |
| Recreational gambler [N (%)] | 1725 (76.5) | 1716 (79.1) | 1713 (79.3) | 1656 (78.3) | 1673 (79.3) |
| At-risk gambler [N (%)] | 283 (12.6) | 214 (9.9) | 186 (8.6) | 175 (8.3) | 178 (8.4) |
| Problem/pathological gambler [N (%)] | 71 (3.1) | 68 (3.1) | 62 (2.9) | 56 (2.6) | 38 (1.8) |
| PPGM scorea [M (SD)] | 1.11 (0.56) | 1.08 (0.54) | 1.05 (0.54) | 1.03 (0.54) | 1.02 (0.51) |
a Missing values imputed: Non-gamblers coded to 0; infrequent/low spend gamblers coded to 1. Gambling categories are listed for descriptive purposes only; continuous PPGM scores were used for analyses
Unconditional latent growth curve model of problem gambling severity, by gender (n = 4120)
| Males (n = 1867) | Females (n = 2253) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| estimate | p | estimate | p | |
| Means/intercept | 1.14 | <0.001 | 1.10 | <0.001 |
| Means/slope | −0.03 | <0.001 | −0.03 | <0.001 |
| Variances/intercept | 0.20 | <0.001 | 0.20 | <0.001 |
| Variances/slope | 0.005 | <0.001 | 0.003 | <0.001 |
| Within-process correlation (intercept < −>slope) | −0.32 | <0.001 | −0.44 | <0.001 |
Unstandardized estimates were used for means and variances; standardized estimates were used for correlations
The influence of frequency of religious service attendance on the intercept and slope of problem gambling severity, by gender (n = 3959)
| Males ( | Females ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Slope | Intercept | Slope | |||||
| Effect | p | Effect | p | Effect | p | Effect | p | |
| Frequency of service attendancea | ||||||||
| Not at all (ref.) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Low | 0.10 | 0.11 | −0.16 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 0.68 |
| Moderate | −0.07 | 0.48 | −0.005 | 0.98 | −0.16 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.68 |
| High | −0.54 | <0.001 | −0.25 | 0.10 | −0.68 | <0.001 | 0.24 | 0.10 |
| Religious affiliationb | ||||||||
| Atheist/Agnostic (ref.) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Catholic | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.96 | 0.30 | 0.03 | −0.09 | 0.74 |
| Protestant | 0.06 | 0.66 | −0.08 | 0.73 | 0.18 | 0.17 | −0.01 | 0.98 |
| Other | −0.10 | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.93 | −0.13 | 0.41 | −0.01 | 0.97 |
| Prefer not to say | 0.21 | 0.19 | −0.38 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.29 | −0.13 | 0.66 |
| Age | −0.004 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.17 | 0.006 | 0.10 |
| Education | −0.12 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.67 | −0.14 | <0.001 | 0.05 | 0.25 |
| Household income | 0.07 | 0.08 | −0.04 | 0.60 | 0.02 | 0.465 | 0.10 | 0.12 |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Never married (ref.) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Married or common law | −0.34 | <0.001 | 0.36 | 0.03 | −0.20 | 0.02 | 0.42 | 0.01 |
| Divorced or separated or widowed | −0.11 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0.78 | −0.19 | 0.05 | 0.45 | 0.01 |
Standardized estimates used for regression coefficients
a Low = categories “once” and “2 to 5 times” in the past year; Moderate = categories “6 to 10 times” and “once or twice a month”; High: categories “once a week” and “more than once a week”
b See Additional file 1: Table S1 for contrasts between all levels of religious affiliation
The influence of overall religiosity on the intercept and slope of problem gambling severity, by gender (n = 4120)
| Males (n = 1867) | Females (n = 2253) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Slope | Intercept | Slope | |||||
| Effect | p | Effect | p | Effect | p | Effect | p | |
| Religiosity total score | −0.17 | <0.001 | −0.002 | 0.97 | −0.13 | <0.001 | −0.004 | 0.93 |
| Religious affiliationa | ||||||||
| Atheist/Agnostic (ref.) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Catholic | 0.28 | 0.01 | −0.15 | 0.45 | 0.49 | <0.001 | −0.15 | 0.51 |
| Protestant | 0.14 | 0.15 | −0.22 | 0.21 | 0.41 | <0.001 | −0.09 | 0.67 |
| Other | −0.05 | 0.71 | −0.11 | 0.63 | 0.05 | 0.71 | −0.09 | 0.71 |
| Prefer not to say | 0.23 | 0.10 | −0.46 | 0.07 | 0.38 | 0.005 | −0.25 | 0.33 |
| Age | −0.01 | 0.004 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.10 |
| Education | −0.15 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.63 | −0.14 | <0.001 | 0.06 | 0.22 |
| Household income | 0.07 | 0.06 | −0.05 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.75 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Never married (ref.) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Married or common law | −0.33 | <0.001 | 0.45 | 0.005 | −0.19 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.01 |
| Divorced or separated or widowed | −0.05 | 0.66 | 0.15 | 0.46 | −0.15 | 0.14 | 0.48 | 0.01 |
a See Additional file 2: Table S2 for contrasts between all levels of religious affiliation