Correction: BMC Psychiatry 23: 199 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04697-w

Following the publication of the original article [1], multiple errors were identified in the sections and Tables 1 and 2. The correct tables are given below and the changes in the abstract, results and discussion sections have been highlighted in bold typeface.

The incorrect Table 1 is:

figure a

The correct Table 1 is:

Table 1 Participant characteristics at baseline
Full size table

The incorrect Table 2 is:

figure b

The correct Table 2 is:

Table 2 Logistic regressions for divorce on odds for first gambling disorder diagnosis
Full size table

Abstract-Results

The sentence currently reads: Logistic regressions showed that transition through divorce was associated with higher odds of future GD compared to illness controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.45, 95% CI [2.06, 2.92]) and the general population (OR = 2.41 [2.02, 2.87]).

The sentence should read: Logistic regressions showed that transition through divorce was associated with higher odds of future GD compared to illness controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.89, 95% CI [2.41, 3.45]) and the general population (OR = 2.83 [2.36, 3.38]).

Results

The incorrect paragraph is: Logistic regression results on analysis of exposure to divorce on GD are provided in Table 2 and informed RQ2. The interaction terms between gender and exposure were not statistically significant (NPR control: OR = 1.11, 95% CI [0.74, 1.66]; FD-Trygd control: OR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.76, 1.72]), so only main effect analyses are reported in the table. ORs were similar between the adjusted and unadjusted analysis. The analytic samples were comparable in terms of age distributions: M = 50 (9) among GD cases, M = 50 (10) among NPR controls, and M = 51 (10) among FD-Trygd controls. Distribution gender differed somewhat, with the proportion of women being lower among cases with GD (23%) compared to NPR controls (26%) and FD-Trygd controls (28%). The results showed that getting divorced was associated with a higher odds ratio of receiving a GD diagnosis. The strength of association was comparable using both types of control groups. Using individuals with other illnesses as controls, those getting divorced had 2.45 (95% CI [2.06, 2.92]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis. Using individuals from the general population as controls, those getting divorced had 2.41 (95% CI [2.02, 2.87]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis.

The correct paragraph is: Logistic regression results on analysis of exposure to divorce on GD are provided in Table 2 and informed RQ2. The interaction terms between gender and exposure were not statistically significant (NPR control: OR = 1.16, 95% CI [0.76, 1.75]; FD-Trygd control: OR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.79, 1.82]), so only main effect analyses are reported in the table. ORs were similar for the adjusted and unadjusted analysis. The analytic samples were comparable in terms of age distributions: M = 50 (10) among GD cases, M = 50 (10) among NPR controls, and M = 51 (10) among FD-Trygd controls. Distribution of gender differed somewhat, with the proportion of women being lower among cases with GD (22%) compared to NPR controls (27%) and FD-Trygd controls (28%). The results showed that getting divorced was associated with a higher odds ratio of receiving a GD diagnosis. The strength of association was comparable using both types of control groups. Using individuals with other illnesses as controls, those getting divorced had 2.89 (95% CI [2.41, 3.45]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis. Using individuals from the general population as controls, those getting divorced had 2.83 (95% CI [2.36, 3.38]) times the odds of getting a GD diagnosis compared to individuals who remained married during the exposure period, based on the adjusted analysis.

Discussion

The incorrect sentence is: The results showed that going through a divorce was associated with 2.45 and 2.41 higher odds of receiving a subsequent GD diagnosis in the case group compared to the NPR illness group and FD-Trygd general population group, respectively.

The correct sentence is: The results showed that going through a divorce was associated with 2.89 and 2.83 higher odds of receiving a subsequent GD diagnosis in the case group compared to the NPR illness group and FD-Trygd general population group, respectively.

The original article [1] has been corrected.