Erschienen in:

29.01.2022 | Correction

Correction to: Gambling Disorder in Male Violent Offenders in the Prison System: Psychiatric and Substance‑Related Comorbidity

verfasst von: Carolina Widinghoff, Jonas Berge, Märta Wallinius, Eva Billstedt, Björn Hofvander, Anders Håkansson

Erschienen in: Journal of Gambling Studies | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Auszug

The original version of this article unfortunately contains a mistake. The corrected details are given below.

(a)

Under heading “Methods”: In second paragraph of sub-heading "Participants" the following sentence "In six cases, there was not sufficient information from the clinical assessments to make a diagnostic evaluation about the presence of a gambling disorder, which yielded a group of 264 participants for this study." should read as "In six cases, there was not sufficient information from the clinical assessments to make a diagnostic evaluation about the presence of a gambling disorder, which yielded a group of 263 participants for this study."

(b)

The decimals in percentages and p-values in all five tables should be updated. The corrected Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are given below.

Table 1

Frequency of diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder, lifetime

Diagnostic criterion	Proportion positive in gambling disorder group (%)
Preoccupation with gambling	81.0
Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money	81.0
Reported unsuccessful efforts to control gambling	57.1
Withdrawal symptoms	71.4
Gambles as a way of escaping	52.4
Chasing losses	81.0
Lies to conceal the extent of involvement in gambling	76.2
Committed illegal acts to finance gambling	52.4
Jeopardized relationships, job etc	23.8
Relies on others to provide money	14.3

Table 2

Sociodemographic data by occurrence of gambling disorder, lifetime

	Total sample	Gambling disorder group	Non gambling disorder group	p-value*	BH-adjusted p-value**
Age, mean (years)	22.3	22.6	22.3	0.283	0.364
Married/living together (%)	24.3	33.3	22.6	0.168	0.267
Born in Sweden (%)	73.4	71.4	73.8	0.849	0.882
Not graduated elementary and middle school in expected age	25.5	45.2	21.7	0.003	0.027
Unemployed before arrest	60.7	64.3	60.0	0.731	0.789

Associations that remained significant after BH-adjustment are presented in bold text

*Fisher’s exact test used for all categorical variables. Student’s t test is used for all numerical values

**Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted p-values using all 27 p-values displayed in Tables 2 and 3

Table 3

Psychiatric and substance abuse comorbidity by occurrence of gambling disorder, lifetime

	Total sample, % (n)	Gambling disorder group, % (n)	Non gambling disorder group, % (n)	p-value*	BH-adjusted p-value**
Mental retardation	1.90 (5)	7.10 (3)	0.90 (2)	0.031	0.105
ADHD	43.3 (113)	52.4 (22)	41.6 (91)	0.234	0.316
Autism spectrum disorders	9.50 (25)	0.0 (0)	11.3 (25)	0.019	0.086
Conduct disorder	79.1 (208)	88.1 (37)	77.4 (171)	0.148	0.266
Substance abuse (any)	84.4 (222)	92.9 (39)	82.8 (183)	0.110	0.248
Alcohol	48.3 (127)	52.4 (22)	47.5 (105)	0.615	0.692
Sedatives	48.7 (127)	64.3 (27)	45.7 (100)	0.029	0.105
Cannabis	77.5 (203)	92.9 (39)	74.5 (164)	0.008	0.043
Central stimulants	48.7 (127)	59.5 (25)	46.6 (102)	0.133	0.257
Cocaine	40.6 (106)	73.8 (31)	34.2 (75)	< 0.001	< 0.001
Hallucinogens	33.7 (88)	47.6 (20)	31.1 (68)	0.049	0.147
Anabolic steroids	14.9 (39)	31.0 (13)	11.9 (26)	0.003	0.027
Inhalants	20.0 (52)	14.3 (6)	21.1 (46)	0.401	0.471
GHB	19.0 (50)	28.6 (12)	17.2 (38)	0.090	0.221
Heroin	34.0 (89)	40.5 (17)	32.7 (72)	0.375	0.460
Opioid analgesics	41.4 (109)	52.4 (22)	39.4 (87)	0.127	0.257
Methadone, buprenorphine	13.7 (36)	7.10 (3)	14.9 (33)	0.226	0.316
Psychotic disorders	7.6 (20)	7.10 (3)	7.7 (17)	1.00	1.00
Affective disorders	54.0 (142)	64.3 (27)	52.0 (115)	0.177	0.267
Anxiety disorders	51.5 (135)	61.9 (26)	49.5 (109)	0.178	0.267
Eating disorders	1.10 (3)	4.80 (2)	0.50 (1)	0.067	0.181
Antisocial personality disorder	63.9 (168)	83.3 (35)	60.2 (133)	0.005	0.034

Associations that remained significant after BH-adjustment are presented in bold text

*Fisher’s exact test used for all categorical variables

**Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted p-values using all 27 p-values displayed in Tables 2 and 3

Table 4

Logistic regression on occurrence of gambling disorder

	OR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)	p-value*
Not graduated elementary and middle school graduation in expected time	2.98 (1.50–5.91)	2.89 (1.37–6.10)	0.005
Cannabis abuse	4.44 (1.32–14.93)	1.46 (0.35–6.09)	0.601
Cocaine abuse	5.41 (2.58–11.37)	3.93 (1.67–9.27)	0.002
Anabolic steroids abuse	3.33 (1.54–7.20)	1.54 (0.65–3.63)	0.329
Antisocial personality disorder	3.31 (1.41–7.78)	1.83 (0.71–4.75)	0.215

The model had a Nagelkerke R Square of 0.217, χ² = 35.5, with p < 0.001

Associations that remained significant in the multivariable regression model are presented in bold text

*p-values from adjusted logistic regression analysis

Table 5

Types of crimes by occurrence of gambling disorder

	Total sample, % (n)	Gambling disorder group, % (n)	Non gambling disorder group, % (n)	p-value*	BH-adjusted p-value**
Violent offenses	100 (263)	100 (42)	100 (221)	N/A
Sexual offenses	11.8 (31)	11.9 (5)	11.8 (26)	1.00	1.00
Drug-related offenses	73.9 (193)	88.1 (37)	71.2 (156)	0.022	0.055
Property offenses	87.8 (231)	90.5 (38)	87.3 (193)	0.797	0.996
Traffic violations	64.9 (170)	81.0 (34)	68.1 (136)	0.021	0.055
Fraud	26.0 (68)	31.0 (13)	25.0 (55)	0.444	0.740

*Fisher’s exact test used for all categorical variables

**Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted p-values using the five p-values displayed in this table

…

MCI-Screening per Handy und Smartwatch? Könnte klappen

Handys und Smartwatches könnten niedrigschwellige Tools sein, um eine beginnende Demenz zu erfassen. In einer US-Studie ließ sich damit eine leichte kognitive Beeinträchtigung (MCI) gut nachweisen. Auch waren gerade die älteren Teilnehmenden sehr motiviert.

Demenz-Leitlinie aktualisiert

13.03.2025

Demenz

Nachrichten

Empfohlen wird jetzt auch eine Musiktherapie sowie bei unklarem diagnostischem Befund ein Tau-PET, und Depressive mit leichten kognitiven Störungen sollten eine Verhaltenstherapie erhalten – das sind einige wichtige Änderungen der aktuellen S3-Leitlinie Demenzen.

Positive Signale für Semaglutid bei Alkoholabhängigkeit

Daten einer kleinen Phase-II-Studie sprechen dafür, GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten in der Behandlung von Alkoholabhängigkeit weiter zu untersuchen.

Wer hat Angst vorm elektromagnetischen Feld?

Ist elektromagnetische Strahlung auch unterhalb von gesetzlichen Grenzwerten gesundheitsschädlich? Ein kleiner Teil der Ärzteschaft hält das für möglich, wobei eher an psychosomatische Effekte gedacht wird, wie eine deutsche Studie nahelegt. Das selbst eingeschätzte Wissen zum Thema ist indes gering.

Springer Medizin

Correction to: Gambling Disorder in Male Violent Offenders in the Prison System: Psychiatric and Substance‑Related Comorbidity

Auszug

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

“A Theta Burst Stimulation on Pre-SMA: Proof-of-Concept of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Gambling Disorder”

Stressful Life Events Precede Gambling Problems, and Continued Gambling Problems Exacerbate Stressful Life Events; A Life Course Calendar Study

Offline and Online Gambling in a Swiss Emerging-Adult Male Population

Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs and Adherence to Responsible Gambling Practices: The Mediating Role of Flourishing

Behavior Change Techniques and Delivery Modes in Interventions Targeting Adolescent Gambling: A Systematic Review

The Prevalence and Correlates of Gambling in Australian Secondary School Students

Neu im Fachgebiet Psychiatrie

MCI-Screening per Handy und Smartwatch? Könnte klappen

Demenz-Leitlinie aktualisiert

Positive Signale für Semaglutid bei Alkoholabhängigkeit

Wer hat Angst vorm elektromagnetischen Feld?

Springer Medizin

Auszug

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten