MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.3200/jach.56.2.93-100

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of American college health : J of ACH · 2007

A national study on gambling among US college student-athletes.

Huang Jiun-Hau, Jacobs Durand F, Derevensky Jeffrey L, Gupta Rina, Paskus Thomas S

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined the national prevalence of gambling problems and sports wagering among US college student-athletes.

PARTICIPANTS

A national sample of 20,739 student-athletes participated in the study.

METHODS

The authors used data from the first national survey of gambling among college athletes, conducted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

RESULTS

Men (62.4%) consistently had higher past-year prevalence of gambling than did women (42.8%). The authors identified 4.3% of men and 0.4% of women as problem or pathological gamblers. Among the most popular forms of gambling were playing cards, lotteries, and games of skill, with male-to-female prevalence ratio ranging 1.3-5.6 across various gambling activities. Athletes in golf and lacrosse were more likely to report sports wagering than were other athletes. Athletes in gender-specific sports wagered more prevalently than did athletes in unisex sports.

CONCLUSION

Gambling prevalence may be underestimated in this population because respondents' athletics eligibility is at stake. This study provides important baseline data for future cohorts of athletes.

Для цитирования: Huang Jiun-Hau, Jacobs Durand F, Derevensky Jeffrey L, Gupta Rina, Paskus Thomas S. A national study on gambling among US college student-athletes.. Journal of American college health : J of ACH. 2007. DOI: 10.3200/jach.56.2.93-100.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.