ArticleBMC public health2025
Using administrative register data for adjusting non-response bias in the finnish gambling harms survey.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Suicidal thoughts, problem gambling severity and utilisation of health care and social services: A population-based study in Finland.Addictive behaviors reports · 2026Article
- A latent class analysis of public opinions about gambling policy goals: a population-based survey in Finland.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow response rates are an increasing problem in population-based gambling surveys. Selective non-response may cause biased findings. Supporting information from administrative registers, whenever available for non-respondents can be utilized to estimate the effect of non-response to the gambling-related outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of non-response to the prevalences of two gambling measures: gambling participation and problem gambling.
methodsPopulation-based Finnish Gambling Harms mixed-mode (online and postal) Survey 2016 was conducted among 18-year-olds or older in three geographical regions in Finland (response rate 36.2%). Weighted prevalences of gambling measures were calculated exploiting the respondents' data (n = 7,153). The study sample (N = 19,741) was individually linked to socio-demographic data from Statistics Finland to obtain information on both respondents and non-respondents. Multiple imputation was utilized to calculate the adjusted prevalences of gambling measures by register-based variables: sex, age, residential area, family structure, household equivalised disposable income, highest education degree, employment status, and native language. Crude prevalences were compared against weighted and non-response adjusted prevalences.
resultsFor gambling participation, there was no difference between the crude (81.9% [95% CI 81.0-82.8%]) and the weighted (83.2% [95% CI 82.3-84.0%]) prevalences (p-value 0.09), or between the crude and the non-response adjusted (82.3% [95% CI 81.6-83.0%]) prevalences (p-value 0.49). However, the non-response adjusted (2.8% [95% CI 2.4-3.3%]) prevalence of problem gambling was higher compared to the crude (1.9% [95% CI 1.6-2.3%]) prevalence (p-value 0.002), while there was no difference between the crude and the weighted (2.2% [95% CI 1.9-2.7%]) prevalences (p-value 0.26).
conclusionsNon-response had an effect of problem gambling prevalence in a Finnish Gambling Harms Survey 2016. The presence of non-response bias should be checked when analysing population surveys. Using administrative register data enables unique opportunities to increase the reliability of the results and to adjust the estimates for non-response.
trial registrationClinical trial number: not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.