Suicidal ideation among people with different gambling behaviour profiles: analysis of a longitudinal survey of people who gamble regularly in the UK

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: People who gamble experience elevated rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviours. Longitudinal studies have been scarce, and none has focused on those who regularly gamble in the UK. AIMS: To examine the relationship between specific products and locations of gambling activity (and their combinations) and risk of subsequent suicidal thoughts. METHOD: We analysed a UK longitudinal survey of 3927 adults (18 years old or over) who regularly bet on sports. Data were collected online between June and November 2020. Latent class analysis was used to identify groups of people with similar gambling profiles on the basis of 13 types of gambling activity. Weighted group characteristics are presented. Regression modelling was used to test associations between gambling groups and suicidal thoughts, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Five distinct groups were identified. One group (5.6% of the sample) reported multiple types of both in-person and online gambling. This group was the most likely to use electronic gambling machines. After adjustment for baseline suicidal thoughts, this group had significantly higher odds of subsequent suicidal thoughts (adjusted odds ratio 3.42; 95% CI: 1.18-9.89) than other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although many profiles of gambling activity present suicide risk, some types present greater risk. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend enquiry in primary care settings about gambling behaviours. Our findings suggest that clinicians should consider asking questions on mode (online or in-person) and product (especially electronic gambling machines) to identify those at heightened risk of suicidal ideation. Gambling should also be considered routinely in psychosocial assessments across clinical settings and incorporated into suicide prevention campaigns.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.