Correction: Marital status and gambling disorder: a longitudinal study based on national registry data

Abstract

Figures

Full text

Correction: BMC Psychiatry 23: 199 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04697-w

Following the publication of the original article [1], multiple errors were identified in the sections and Tables 1 and 2. The correct tables are given below and the changes in the abstract, results and discussion sections have been highlighted in bold typeface.

The incorrect Table 1 is:

The correct Table 1 is: Table 1. Participant characteristics at baselineSampleGD(n = 5,121)Illness control(n = 27,826)General control*(n* = 26,695)p-value^1^Women935 (18.3%)5,038 (18.1%)5,193 (19.5%) < 0.001Age in 2008 < 0.001 Median (IQR)29 (22, 39)29 (22, 39)30 (22, 39) Mean (SD)30.9 (12)30.8 (12)31.3 (12)Marital status at baseline < 0.001 Unmarried3,674 (71.7%)17,828 (64.1%)16,819 (63.0%) Married914 (18.9%)8,404 (30.2%)8,345 (31.3%) Separated/divorced510 (10.0%)1,510 (5.4%)1,444 (5.4%) Widowed23 (0.4%)84 (0.3%)87 (0.3%)Marital status changes^2^ < 0.001 04,024 (78.6%)22,324 (80.2%)21,123 (79.1%) 1812 (15.9%)4,730 (17.0%)4,757 (17.8%) 2224 (4.4%)633 (2.3%)685 (2.6%) 3 + 61 (1.2%)139 (0.5%)130 (0.5%)Note. ^1^Pearson's Chi-squared test for categorical; One-way ANOVA for continuous. ^2^During study period January 2008 to December 2018. Total percentage slightly exceeds 100 in some cases due to rounding

The incorrect Table 2 is:

The correct Table 2 is: Table 2. Logistic regressions for divorce on odds for first gambling disorder diagnosisAgainst NPR illness control (n = 7,441)Against FD-Trygd general control (n = 7,443)PredictorOR^1^95% CI^1^p-valueOR^1^95% CI^1^p-valueUnadjusted analysis Age in 20081.00[1.00, 1.01]0.2611.00[0.99, 1.00]0.403Gender Men (reference)———— Women0.77[0.65, 0.90]0.0020.73[0.62, 0.86] < 0.001Exposure Married (reference)———— Divorce2.82[2.36, 3.37] < 0.0012.82[2.36, 3.37] < 0.001Adjusted analysis Age in 20081.01[1.00, 1.02]0.0251.00[0.99, 1.01]0.720Gender Men (reference)1.00—1.00— Women0.75[0.64, 0.89] < 0.0010.73[0.61, 0.86] < 0.001Exposure Married (reference)1.00—1.00— Divorce2.89[2.41, 3.45] < 0.0012.83[2.36, 3.38] < 0.001Note. ^1^OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval. GD cases = 885

Abstract-Results

The sentence currently reads: Logistic regressions showed that transition through divorce was associated with higher odds of future GD compared to illness controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.45, 95% CI [2.06, 2.92]) and the general population (OR = 2.41 [2.02, 2.87]).

The sentence should read: Logistic regressions showed that transition through divorce was associated with higher odds of future GD compared to illness controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.89, 95% CI [2.41, 3.45]) and the general population (OR = 2.83 [2.36, 3.38]).

Results

The incorrect paragraph is: Logistic regression results on analysis of exposure to divorce on GD are provided in Table 2 and informed RQ2. The interaction terms between gender and exposure were not statistically significant (NPR control: OR = 1.11, 95% CI [0.74, 1.66]; FD-Trygd control: OR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.76, 1.72]), so only main effect analyses are reported in the table. ORs were similar between the adjusted and unadjusted analysis. The analytic samples were comparable in terms of age distributions: M = 50 (9) among GD cases, M = 50 (10) among NPR controls, and M = 51 (10) among FD-Trygd controls. Distribution gender differed somewhat, with the proportion of women being lower among cases with GD (23%) compared to NPR controls (26%) and FD-Trygd controls (28%). The results showed that getting divorced was associated with a higher odds ratio of receiving a GD diagnosis. The strength of association was comparable using both types of control groups. Using individuals with other illnesses as controls, those getting divorced had 2.45 (95% CI [2.06, 2.92]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis. Using individuals from the general population as controls, those getting divorced had 2.41 (95% CI [2.02, 2.87]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis.

The correct paragraph is: Logistic regression results on analysis of exposure to divorce on GD are provided in Table 2 and informed RQ2. The interaction terms between gender and exposure were not statistically significant (NPR control: OR = 1.16, 95% CI [0.76, 1.75]; FD-Trygd control: OR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.79, 1.82]), so only main effect analyses are reported in the table. ORs were similar for the adjusted and unadjusted analysis. The analytic samples were comparable in terms of age distributions: M = 50 (10) among GD cases, M = 50 (10) among NPR controls, and M = 51 (10) among FD-Trygd controls. Distribution of gender differed somewhat, with the proportion of women being lower among cases with GD (22%) compared to NPR controls (27%) and FD-Trygd controls (28%). The results showed that getting divorced was associated with a higher odds ratio of receiving a GD diagnosis. The strength of association was comparable using both types of control groups. Using individuals with other illnesses as controls, those getting divorced had 2.89 (95% CI [2.41, 3.45]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis. Using individuals from the general population as controls, those getting divorced had 2.83 (95% CI [2.36, 3.38]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis.

Discussion

The incorrect sentence is: The results showed that going through a divorce was associated with 2.45 and 2.41 higher odds of receiving a subsequent GD diagnosis in the case group compared to the NPR illness group and FD-Trygd general population group, respectively.

The correct sentence is: The results showed that going through a divorce was associated with 2.89 and 2.83 higher odds of receiving a subsequent GD diagnosis in the case group compared to the NPR illness group and FD-Trygd general population group, respectively.

The original article [1] has been corrected.