Was less clear, even if single mothers were over represented and

Was less clear, even if single mothers were over represented and married women or women who lived together with a partner 518303-20-3 site without children were under represented. When age and problem gambling was controlled for, only being a single mother was a significant factor. All CSOs had lent money to someone who they thought or knew would use it to gamble or pay gambling debts. Approximately one third of men who were CSOs had done this compared with 13 of the women who were CSOs. However, the OR was higher for women than for men. The explanation for this is found in the fact that men who were not CSOs also (to a relatively high degree) had lent money to someone for gambling purpose (6.3 ). A low 221244-14-0 supplier proportion of both male andSvensson et al. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:1087 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/Page 7 ofTable 3 Sample description and comparison between CSOs and non-CSOS for men and womenMen Age 16?7 18?4 25?4 45?4 65?4 Education Low level Mid level High level Country of birth Born outside Sweden Family situation Single without children Single with children *** 3.6 (115) 10.6 (335) 30.0 (946) 34.5 (1091) 21.2 (671) ** 28.0 (809) 44.4 (1284) 27.6 (799) *** 11.2 (353) *** 34.1 (1078) 1.7 (65) 39.7 (309) 2.6 (20) 27.8 (216) 29.9 (233) 20.1 (156) 27.0 (204) 51.1 (386) 21.9 (165) 2.7 (21) 17.5 (136) 45.7 (356) 27.0 (210) 7.2 (56) Women *** 3.1 (103) 8.9 (292) 30.5 (999) 34.9 (1141) 22.5 (737) *** 25.2 (756) 42.0 (1258) 32.8 (984) ns (0.05) 15.5 (507) *** 31.6 (1034) 5.1 (168) 36.0 (1176) 27.3 (893) ** 5.7 (43) 3.7 (115) *** 25.4 (195) 1.4 (47) 13.1 (90)*** 5.0 (4.1?.3)*** 10.3 (7.2?4.9)*** 6.4 (43) 1.9 (1.3?.8)** 1.8 (1.3?.6)** 32.8 (228) 11.1 (77) 25.5 (177) 30.6 (213) 18.4 (128) 17.9 (121) 52.6 (356) 29.5 (200) 1.2 (1.0?.5)ns 1.4 (1.2?.8)*** 1.0 *** 2.0 (1.6?.4)*** Controlled for age 1.0 1.4 (0.8?.4)ns 0.9 (0.7?.1)ns 1.4 (1.1?.7)** 1.0 2.6 (1.9?.5)*** 0.9 (0.7?.1) 1.2 (1.0?.5)ns 0.8 (0.6?.0)ns 1.4 (1.2?.7)** 1.0 ns 1.2 (1.0?.5)ns 3.0 (21) 14.4 (100) 46.4 (322) 26.9 (187) 1.6 (64) OR (95 CI)a Men *** 2.2 (1.3?.8)** 4.9 (3.5?.9*** 4.5 (3.4?.1)*** 2.3 (1.7?.2)*** 1.0 2.4 (1.4?.1)** 4.0 (2.8?.6)*** 3.7 (2.8?.0) 1.9 (1.4?.6)*** 1.0 Women Not CSO (n) CSO (n) Not CSO (n) CSO (n)Married/living with 40.3 (1273) partner without children Married/living together with children Living on social welfare 18.8 (741) ** 3.1 (93) Have lent money to someone they thought or knew would use it to gamble or pay gambling debts *** 6.3 (199)*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. a Family situation was controlled for age in the logistic regression.female CSOs had sought help, 8.5 of male CSOs (n = 66) and 10.9 female (n = 75); thus, there was no significant difference between sexes (not shown in table).Health among CSOsSocial support and fear of losing employment among CSOsThe hypotheses that CSOs would be more likely to experience problem gambling, riskier alcohol consumption and mental health problems were partly confirmed. Table 1 shows that in both the crude analyses and after controlling for age and problem gambling, men and women who were CSOs experienced poorer mental health than the general population and had a higher degree of risky alcohol consumption. However, it was only male CSOs who were more likely to be problem gamblers while there was no such association for women. When controlling for age and problem gambling, women reported poorer health than the general population. Women also reported more sick leave days from work ?there was no such.Was less clear, even if single mothers were over represented and married women or women who lived together with a partner without children were under represented. When age and problem gambling was controlled for, only being a single mother was a significant factor. All CSOs had lent money to someone who they thought or knew would use it to gamble or pay gambling debts. Approximately one third of men who were CSOs had done this compared with 13 of the women who were CSOs. However, the OR was higher for women than for men. The explanation for this is found in the fact that men who were not CSOs also (to a relatively high degree) had lent money to someone for gambling purpose (6.3 ). A low proportion of both male andSvensson et al. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:1087 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/Page 7 ofTable 3 Sample description and comparison between CSOs and non-CSOS for men and womenMen Age 16?7 18?4 25?4 45?4 65?4 Education Low level Mid level High level Country of birth Born outside Sweden Family situation Single without children Single with children *** 3.6 (115) 10.6 (335) 30.0 (946) 34.5 (1091) 21.2 (671) ** 28.0 (809) 44.4 (1284) 27.6 (799) *** 11.2 (353) *** 34.1 (1078) 1.7 (65) 39.7 (309) 2.6 (20) 27.8 (216) 29.9 (233) 20.1 (156) 27.0 (204) 51.1 (386) 21.9 (165) 2.7 (21) 17.5 (136) 45.7 (356) 27.0 (210) 7.2 (56) Women *** 3.1 (103) 8.9 (292) 30.5 (999) 34.9 (1141) 22.5 (737) *** 25.2 (756) 42.0 (1258) 32.8 (984) ns (0.05) 15.5 (507) *** 31.6 (1034) 5.1 (168) 36.0 (1176) 27.3 (893) ** 5.7 (43) 3.7 (115) *** 25.4 (195) 1.4 (47) 13.1 (90)*** 5.0 (4.1?.3)*** 10.3 (7.2?4.9)*** 6.4 (43) 1.9 (1.3?.8)** 1.8 (1.3?.6)** 32.8 (228) 11.1 (77) 25.5 (177) 30.6 (213) 18.4 (128) 17.9 (121) 52.6 (356) 29.5 (200) 1.2 (1.0?.5)ns 1.4 (1.2?.8)*** 1.0 *** 2.0 (1.6?.4)*** Controlled for age 1.0 1.4 (0.8?.4)ns 0.9 (0.7?.1)ns 1.4 (1.1?.7)** 1.0 2.6 (1.9?.5)*** 0.9 (0.7?.1) 1.2 (1.0?.5)ns 0.8 (0.6?.0)ns 1.4 (1.2?.7)** 1.0 ns 1.2 (1.0?.5)ns 3.0 (21) 14.4 (100) 46.4 (322) 26.9 (187) 1.6 (64) OR (95 CI)a Men *** 2.2 (1.3?.8)** 4.9 (3.5?.9*** 4.5 (3.4?.1)*** 2.3 (1.7?.2)*** 1.0 2.4 (1.4?.1)** 4.0 (2.8?.6)*** 3.7 (2.8?.0) 1.9 (1.4?.6)*** 1.0 Women Not CSO (n) CSO (n) Not CSO (n) CSO (n)Married/living with 40.3 (1273) partner without children Married/living together with children Living on social welfare 18.8 (741) ** 3.1 (93) Have lent money to someone they thought or knew would use it to gamble or pay gambling debts *** 6.3 (199)*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. a Family situation was controlled for age in the logistic regression.female CSOs had sought help, 8.5 of male CSOs (n = 66) and 10.9 female (n = 75); thus, there was no significant difference between sexes (not shown in table).Health among CSOsSocial support and fear of losing employment among CSOsThe hypotheses that CSOs would be more likely to experience problem gambling, riskier alcohol consumption and mental health problems were partly confirmed. Table 1 shows that in both the crude analyses and after controlling for age and problem gambling, men and women who were CSOs experienced poorer mental health than the general population and had a higher degree of risky alcohol consumption. However, it was only male CSOs who were more likely to be problem gamblers while there was no such association for women. When controlling for age and problem gambling, women reported poorer health than the general population. Women also reported more sick leave days from work ?there was no such.