Risk and protective factors for the development of gambling-related harms and problems among Australian sexual minority men

Table 3 Comparisons in problem gambling severity and gambling-related harm between heterosexual male and sexual minority male participants

Characteristics	Het. men	SMM	Inferential statistics	Effect size
Problem gambling severity^a, M (SD)	1.8 (1.0)*	1.5 (1.0)	t (2302) = 2.00 p = .047	d = − .3
Gambling risk category^a, n (%)			χ2 (3, n = 304) = 4.10, p = .250	Φ = .12
Non-problem gambling	25 (12.3)	21 (21.0)
Low-risk gambling	40 (19.6)	18 (18.0)
Moderate-risk gambling	58 (28.4)	27 (27.0)
Problem gambling	81 (39.7)	34 (34.0)
Gambling-related harms^b, M (SD)	3.8 (3.4)	3.4 (3.3)	t (300) = .85 p = .397	d = − .12
Gambling-related harms^b score ≥ 1, n (%)	151 (75.1)	72 (71.3)	χ2 (1, n = 302) = .33, p = .564	Φ = − .04

Rows in bold indicate significant differences between groups. d = Cohen’s d. χ2 = Chi-square. Φ = Phi
^*Indicates that the proportion of respondents in that category from that group (either heterosexual male or sexual minority male participants) is significantly higher than the proportion of respondents from the other group
^aProblem Gambling Severity Index. Total score range = 0–27; Non-problem gambling = 0; Low-risk gambling = 1–2; Moderate-risk gambling = 3–7; Problem gambling = 8 or more
^bShort Gambling Harms Screen. Score range = 0–10

ISSN: 2050-7283