Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 18;18(4):1973. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041973

Table 4.

Comparison between respondents who gambled and did not gamble during lockdown.

Sample Characteristics Not Gambling during Lockdown Gambling during Lockdown p-Value
(n = 49) (n = 61)
Gender 0.19
Female 14 (28.6%) 11 (18.0%)
Male 35 (71.4%) 50 (82.0%)
Age, mean (SD) 33.25 (13.06) 33.69 (10.49) 0.56
Language Region 0.348
German 31 (63.3%) 33 (54.1%)
French 10 (20.4%) 20 (32.8%)
Italian 8 (16.3%) 8 (13.1%)
Marital Status 0.002
Single 19 (38.8%) 17 (27.9%)
In a relationship 6 (12.2%) 28 (45.9%)
Married/In a registered partnership 8 (16.3%) 9 (14.8%)
Divorced/Dissolved registered
partnership
1 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%)
No response 15 (30.6%) 7 (11.5%)
Education 0.676
Compulsory schooling 6 (12.2%) 9 (14.8%)
Apprenticeship 22 (44.9%) 24 (39.3%)
Diploma/College 10 (20.4%) 16 (26.2%)
University degree 9 (18.4%) 7 (11.5%)
Other 2 (4.1%) 5 (8.2%)
Net income (Swiss Francs, per Month) <0.001
Less than 3000 17 (34.7%) 10 (16.4%)
3000–7000 21 (42.9%) 9 (14.8%)
7001–9000 4 (8.2%) 22 (36.1%)
More than 9000 4 (8.2%) 18 (29.5%)
No response 3 (6.1%) 2 (3.3%)
Gambling Exclusion 0.019
No exclusion 37 (75.5%) 56 (91.8%)
Exclusion 12 (24.5%) 5 (8.2%)
SOGS, mean (SD) 2.36 (2.99) 2.05 (2.35) 0.874
L-1, mean (SD) 7.12 (1.73) 6.18 (1.42) 0.002
PHQ-4, mean (SD) 2.63 (2.58) 5.83 (3.30) <0.000

Note: The table shows the number of participants who gambled or did not gamble during the lockdown, per category for each of the categorical variables. For continuous variables the mean and standard deviation are reported. The second column reports the predicted marginal effects of the variables on the probability that an individual had gambled during lockdown. The last column shows the p-values from χ2 tests for categorical variables or Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests for continuous variables.