Table 3.

Stratified analyses (binomial regression) on the association between exercise addiction and psychological functioning according to injury status.

		Exercise addiction				PPD within strata of injury
		Low risk addiction		High risk addiction
		Dysfunction/no dysfunction	PPD 95% CI	Dysfunction/no dysfunction	PPD 95% CI
Depression	Non-injured	20/425	Reference	12/27	8.4% [−3.5%; 20.4%] p = 0.17	8.4% [−3.5%; 20.4%] p = 0.17
	Injured	64/499	6.9% [3.6%; 10.1%] p < 0.01	4/38	22.8% [9.5%; 36.1%] p < 0.01	15.9% [2.5%; 29.3%] p < 0.01
Emotional stress	Non-injured	89/356	Reference	14/17	25.2% [7.3%; 43.1%] p < 0.01	25.2% [7.3%; 43.1%] p < 0.01
	Injured	158/405	8.1% [2.8%; 13.3%] p < 0.01	24/20	34.5% [19.4%; 49.7%] p < 0.01	26.4% [11.3%; 41.7] p < 0.01

Participants were categorized into four groups according to their risk of being addicted to exercise and their injury status. Analyses of two psychological distress outcomes are presented: Depression and Emotional stress. The reference risks for the exercisers at low risk of addiction and with no injuries were 4.5% [2.6%; 6.4%] for depression; and 20.0% [16.3%; 23.7%] for emotional distress. CI = confidence interval. Measure of association is prevalence proportion difference (PPD), which is interpreted as percentage points. The test for no difference between the two injury strata revealed a non-significant difference in PPD across strata of 7.5% [−10.5%; 25.5%], p = 0.41. Similarly, no difference was observed for emotional stress across strata of injury = 1.2% [−22.2%; 24.8%], p = 0.91.