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

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.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics at baseline

Sample	GD (n = 5,121)	Illness control (n = 27,826)	General control (n = 26,695)	p-value1
Women	935 (18.3%)	5,038 (18.1%)	5,193 (19.5%)	< 0.001
Age 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
Unmarried	3,674 (71.7%)	17,828 (64.1%)	16,819 (63.0%)
Married	914 (18.9%)	8,404 (30.2%)	8,345 (31.3%)
Separated/divorced	510 (10.0%)	1,510 (5.4%)	1,444 (5.4%)
Widowed	23 (0.4%)	84 (0.3%)	87 (0.3%)
Marital status changes2				< 0.001
0	4,024 (78.6%)	22,324 (80.2%)	21,123 (79.1%)
1	812 (15.9%)	4,730 (17.0%)	4,757 (17.8%)
2	224 (4.4%)	633 (2.3%)	685 (2.6%)
3 +	61 (1.2%)	139 (0.5%)	130 (0.5%)

Note. ¹Pearson's Chi-squared test for categorical; One-way ANOVA for continuous. ²During study period January 2008 to December 2018. Total percentage slightly exceeds 100 in some cases due to rounding

Table 2.

Logistic regressions for divorce on odds for first gambling disorder diagnosis

	Against NPR illness control (n = 7,441)			Against FD-Trygd general control (n = 7,443)
Predictor	OR1	95% CI1	p-value	OR1	95% CI1	p-value
Unadjusted analysis
Age in 2008	1.00	[1.00, 1.01]	0.261	1.00	[0.99, 1.00]	0.403
Gender
Men (reference)	—	—		—	—
Women	0.77	[0.65, 0.90]	0.002	0.73	[0.62, 0.86]	< 0.001
Exposure
Married (reference)	—	—		—	—
Divorce	2.82	[2.36, 3.37]	< 0.001	2.82	[2.36, 3.37]	< 0.001
Adjusted analysis
Age in 2008	1.01	[1.00, 1.02]	0.025	1.00	[0.99, 1.01]	0.720
Gender
Men (reference)	1.00	—		1.00	—
Women	0.75	[0.64, 0.89]	< 0.001	0.73	[0.61, 0.86]	< 0.001
Exposure
Married (reference)	1.00	—		1.00	—
Divorce	2.89	[2.41, 3.45]	< 0.001	2.83	[2.36, 3.38]	< 0.001

Note. ¹OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval. GD cases = 885

The incorrect Table 1 is:

The correct Table 1 is:

The incorrect Table 2 is:

The correct Table 2 is:

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.