Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Inclusion Criteria
3. Results
3.1. Active Engagement Harm-Reduction Tools for Gamblers
3.1.1. Voluntary Limit-Setting
3.1.2. Exclusion
3.1.3. Active Personalised Behavioural Feedback
3.2. Passive Engagement Harm-Reduction Tools for Gamblers
3.2.1. Pop-Up Messages
3.2.2. Forced Breaks in Play
3.2.3. Speed of Play
Category of Harm-Minimisation Tool (n = 55) | Number of Studies [References] | Summary of Results |
---|---|---|
Active engagement (n = 30) | ||
Voluntary self-exclusion | 12 [11,32,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53] | Positive outcomes for some gamblers, though breaches are common and are often overlooked by operators. The registration process should be easy to use and accompanied by additional protective measures. |
Voluntary limit-setting | 11 [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43] | Potential harm-minimisation benefits for some gamblers; however, low uptake. Providing personalised behavioural feedback may increase the uptake of limit-setting tools. |
Active personalised behavioural feedback | 7 [16,18,56,57,58,59,60] | Some evidence that receiving feedback was associated with a reduction in gambling. There may be differences in how feedback is received by at-risk and nonrisky gamblers. |
Passive engagement (n = 25) | ||
Pop-up messages | 9 [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69] | The evidence is mixed and inconclusive. Messages may be perceived differently depending on whether gamblers are winning or losing. |
Passive personalised behavioural feedback | 8 [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83] | Some evidence that providing information about how gamblers’ behaviour compared to most other players led to a reduction in gambling. How feedback is received may differ between at-risk vs. nonrisky gamblers in terms of how it is provided, e.g., by letter or telephone. |
Forced breaks | 4 [70,71,72,73] | The evidence is mixed and inconclusive. Longer breaks (e.g., 60 min) vs. shorter breaks (e.g., 60 s) may be more effective. |
Third-party exclusion | 3 [32,54,55] | Not enough research to draw conclusions. However, like voluntary exclusion, studies reported that violations of exclusion orders were not uncommon. |
Speed of play | 1 [75] | One laboratory-based study reducing the speed of play was associated with a reduction in the amount of money gambled despite greater time spent gambling. |
3.2.4. Passive Personalised Behavioural Feedback
4. Discussion
4.1. Future Research Directions and Gaps in the Evidence
4.2. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Langham, E.; Thorne, H.; Browne, M.; Donaldson, P.; Rose, J.; Rockloff, M. Understanding gambling related harm: A proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petry, N.M.; Ginley, M.K.; Rash, C.J. A Systematic Review of Treatments for Problem Gambling. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2017, 31, 951–961. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Pickering, D.; Keen, B.; Entwistle, G.; Blaszczynski, A. Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: A systematic review. Addiction 2018, 113, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribeiro, E.O.; Afonso, N.H.; Morgado, P. Non-pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Psychiatry 2021, 21, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Browne, M.; Langham, E.; Rawat, V.; Greer, N.; Li, E.; Rose, J.; Rockloff, M.; Donaldson, P.; Thorne, H.; Goodwin, B.; et al. Assessing Gambling-Related Harm in Victoria: A Public Health Perspective; Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation: Melbourne, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Riley, B.J.; Harvey, P.; Crisp, B.R.; Battersby, M.; Lawn, S. Gambling-related harm as reported by concerned significant others: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of empirical studies. J. Fam. Stud. 2021, 27, 112–130. [Google Scholar]
- Abbott, M. Gambling Control and Public Health: Let’s Be Really Honest. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 18, 825–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raisamo, S. Harm caused by gambling among non-problem gamblers: Is a whole-of-population approach undervalued? Scand. J. Public Health 2018, 46, 503–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davies, N.H.; Roderique-Davies, G.; Drummond, L.C.; Torrance, J.; Sabolova, K.; Thomas, S.; John, B. Accessing the invisible population of low-risk gamblers, issues with screening, testing and theory: A systematic review. J. Public Health 2023, 31, 1259–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinstock, J.; April, L.M.; Kallmi, S. Is subclinical gambling really subclinical? Addict. Behav. 2017, 73, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catania, M.; Griffiths, M.D. Understanding Online Voluntary Self-Exclusion in Gambling: An Empirical Study Using Account-Based Behavioral Tracking Data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Procter, L.; Angus, D.J.; Blaszczynski, A.; Gainsbury, S.M. Understanding use of consumer protection tools among Internet gambling customers: Utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior and Theory of Reasoned Action. Addict. Behav. 2019, 99, 106050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bijker, R.; Booth, N.; Merkouris, S.S.; Dowling, N.A.; Rodda, S.N. Global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction 2020, 117, 2972–2985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kotter, R.; Kräplin, A.; Pittig, A.; Bühringer, G. A Systematic Review of Land-Based Self-Exclusion Programs: Demographics, Gambling Behavior, Gambling Problems, Mental Symptoms, and Mental Health. J. Gambl. Stud. 2019, 35, 367–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hopfgartner, N.; Auer, M.; Griffiths, M.D.; Helic, D. Predicting self-exclusion among online gamblers: An empirical real-world study. J. Gambl. Stud. 2023, 39, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Auer, M.; Hopfgartner, N.; Griffiths, M.D. The effect of loss-limit reminders on gambling behavior: A real-world study of Norwegian gamblers. J. Behav. Addict. 2018, 7, 1056–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bonello, M.; Griffiths, M.D. Analyzing Consumer Protection for Gamblers across Different Online Gambling Operators: A Descriptive Study. Gaming Law Rev. Econ. 2017, 21, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wohl, M.J.A.; Davis, C.G.; Hollingshead, S.J. How much have you won or lost? Personalized behavioral feedback about gambling expenditures regulates play. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 70, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gainsbury, S.M.; Angus, D.J.; Procter, L.; Blaszczynski, A. Use of Consumer Protection Tools on Internet Gambling Sites: Customer Perceptions, Motivators, and Barriers to Use. J. Gambl. Stud. 2020, 36, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delfabbro, P.; Osborn, A.; Nevile, M.; Skelt, L.; McMillen, J. Identifying Problem Gamblers in Gambling Venues: Final Report; Gambling Research Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Marionneau, V.; Järvinen-Tassopoulos, J. Consumer protection in licensed online gambling markets in France: The role of responsible gambling tools. Addict. Res. Theory 2017, 25, 436–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiedler, I.; Kairouz, S.; Reynolds, J. Corporate social responsibility vs. financial interests: The case of responsible gambling programs. J. Public Health 2021, 29, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newall, P.W.S. Dark nudges in gambling. Addict. Res. Theory 2019, 27, 65–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hing, N.; Russell, A.M.T.; Black, A.; Rockloff, M.; Browne, M.; Rawat, V.; Greer, N.; Stevens, M.; Dowling, N.A.; Merkouris, S.; et al. Gambling prevalence and gambling problems amongst land-based-only, online-only and mixed-mode gamblers in Australia: A national study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 132, 107269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, K.A.; Saldanha, I.J.; McKoy, N.A. Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64, 1325–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, J.L.; Beech, E.H.; Evatt, D.P.; Belsher, B.E.; Workman, D.E.; Campbell, M.S. A systematic approach to the identification and prioritization of psychological health research gaps in the Department of Defense. Mil. Psychol. 2018, 30, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladouceur, R.; Shaffer, P.; Blaszczynski, A.; Shaffer, H.J. Responsible gambling: A synthesis of the empirical evidence. Addict. Res. Theory 2017, 25, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, A.; Hilbrecht, M.; Billi, R. Charting a path towards a public health approach for gambling harm prevention. J. Public Health 2021, 29, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, B.J.; Oakes, J.; Lawn, S. Gambling harm reduction: Evidence gap analysis. Final Report. SR/22/03. Victorian Foundation Responsible Gambling: Melbourne, Victoria.
- Covidence Systematic Review Software Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available online: www.covidence.org (accessed on 4 July 2022).
- Hong, Q.N.; Pluye, P.; Fabregues, S.; Bartlett, G.; Boardman, F.; Cargo, M.; Dagenais, P.; Gagnon, M.-P.; Griffiths, F.; Nicolau, B.; et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2018 (MMAT v.18) 2018. Available online: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2024).
- Hayer, T.; Brosowski, T.; Meyer, G. Multi-venue exclusion program and early detection of problem gamblers: What works and what does not? Int. Gambl. Stud. 2020, 20, 556–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanova, E.; Magnusson, K.; Carlbring, P. Deposit limit prompt in online gambling for reducing gambling intensity: A randomized controlled trial. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brevers, D.; Noel, X.; Clark, L.; Zyuzin, J.; Justin Park, J.; Bechara, A. The Impact of Precommitment on Risk-Taking While Gambling: A Preliminary Study. J. Behav. Addict. 2016, 5, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auer, M.; Hopfgartner, N.; Griffiths, M.D. The Effects of Voluntary Deposit Limit-Setting on Long-Term Online Gambling Expenditure. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2020, 23, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heirene, R.M.; Gainsbury, S.M. Encouraging and evaluating limit-setting among on-line gamblers: A naturalistic randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2021, 116, 2801–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Auer, M.; Griffiths, M.D. Predicting Limit-Setting Behavior of Gamblers Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Real-World Study of Norwegian Gamblers Using Account Data. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2019, 20, 771–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakew, N. “Show Me the Money”: Preliminary Lessons from an Implementation of Intervention Tools at the Payment Gateway Level. J. Gambl. Stud. 2021, 38, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broda, A.; LaPlante, D.A.; Nelson, S.E.; LaBrie, R.A.; Bosworth, L.B.; Shaffer, H.J. Virtual harm reduction efforts for Internet gambling: Effects of deposit limits on actual Internet sports gambling behavior. Harm Reduct. J. 2008, 5, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wood, R.T.A.; Griffiths, M.D. Understanding Positive Play: An Exploration of Playing Experiences and Responsible Gambling Practices. J. Gambl. Stud. 2014, 31, 1715–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodda, S.N.; Bagot, K.L.; Manning, V.; Lubman, D.I. An Exploratory RCT to Support Gamblers’ Intentions to Stick to Monetary Limits: A Brief Intervention Using Action and Coping Planning. J. Gambl. Stud. 2020, 36, 387–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabri, N.; Hollingshead, S.J.; Wohl, M.J.A. A limit approaching pop-up message reduces gambling expenditures, except among players with a financially focused self-concept. Int. Gambl. Stud. 2019, 19, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollingshead, S.J.; Wohl, M.J.A.; Santesso, D. Do you read me? Including personalized behavioral feedback in pop-up messages does not enhance limit adherence among gamblers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 94, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormick, A.V.; Cohen, I.M.; Davies, G. Differential Effects of Formal and Informal Gambling on Symptoms of Problem Gambling during Voluntary Self-Exclusion. J. Gambl. Stud. 2018, 34, 1013–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickering, D.; Blaszczynski, A.; Gainsbury, S.M. Multivenue self-exclusion for gambling disorders: A retrospective process investigation. J. Gambl. Issues 2018, 38, 127–151. [Google Scholar]
- Caillon, J.; Grall-Bronnec, M.; Perrot, B.; Leboucher, J.; Donnio, Y.; Romo, L.; Challet-Bouju, G. Effectiveness of At-Risk Gamblers’ Temporary Self-Exclusion from Internet Gambling Sites. J. Gambl. Stud. 2019, 35, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hing, N.; Russell, A.; Tolchard, B.; Nuske, E. Are There Distinctive Outcomes from Self-Exclusion? An Exploratory Study Comparing Gamblers Who Have Self-Excluded, Received Counselling, or Both. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2015, 13, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luquiens, A.; Dugravot, A.; Panjo, H.; Benyamina, A.; Gaiffas, S.; Bacry, E. Self-Exclusion among Online Poker Gamblers: Effects on Expenditure in Time and Money as Compared to Matched Controls. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luquiens, A.; Vendryes, D.; Aubin, H.-J.; Benyamina, A.; Gaiffas, S.; Bacry, E. Description and assessment of trustability of motives for self-exclusion reported by online poker gamblers in a cohort using account-based gambling data. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e02254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turner, N.E.; Shi, J.; Robinson, J.; McAvoy, S.; Sanchez, S. Efficacy of a Voluntary Self-exclusion Reinstatement Tutorial for Problem Gamblers. J. Gambl. Stud. 2021, 37, 1245–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yakovenko, I.; Hodgins, D.C. Effectiveness of a voluntary casino self-exclusion online self-management program. Internet Interv. 2021, 23, 100354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pickering, D.; Blaszczynski, A. Should I Stay or Should I Go? A Comparative Exploratory Analysis of Individuals Electing to Continue or Discontinue Self-Exclusion from Land-Based Gambling Venues. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2022, 20, 1182–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotter, R.; Kraplin, A.; Buhringer, G. Casino Self- and Forced Excluders’ Gambling Behavior before and after Exclusion. J. Gambl. Stud. 2018, 34, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lischer, S.; Schwarz, J. Self-exclusion and imposed exclusion as strategies for reducing harm: Data from three Swiss Casinos. J. Gambl. Issues 2018, 40, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goh, E.C.L.; Ng, V.; Yeoh, B.S.A. The family exclusion order as a harm-minimisation measure for casino gambling: The case of Singapore. Int. Gambl. Stud. 2016, 16, 373–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auer, M.; Griffiths, M.D. The use of personalized messages on wagering behavior of swedish online gamblers: An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 110, 106402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auer, M.M.; Griffiths, M.D. The use of personalized behavioral feedback for online gamblers: An empirical study. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, R.T.A.; Wohl, M.J.A. Assessing the effectiveness of a responsible gambling behavioural feedback tool for reducing the gambling expenditure of at-risk players. Int. Gambl. Stud. 2015, 15, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsstrom, D.; Rafi, J.; Carlbring, P. Dropouts’ usage of a responsible gambling tool and subsequent gambling patterns. Cogent Psychol. 2020, 7, 1715535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edson, T.C.; Tom, M.A.; LaPlante, D.A. Examining Player Engagement with and Attitudes Toward a Gambling Play Management System. J. Gambl. Stud. 2021, 37, 1313–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Armstrong, T.; Donaldson, P.; Langham, E.; Rockloff, M.; Browne, M. Exploring the effectiveness of an intelligent messages framework for developing warning messages to reduce gambling intensity. J. Gambl. Issues 2018, 38, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ginley, M.K.; Whelan, J.P.; Keating, H.A.; Meyers, A.W. Gambling Warning Messages: The Impact of Winning and Losing on Message Reception across a Gambling Session. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2016, 30, 931–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, A.; Parke, A. The Interaction of Gambling Outcome and Gambling Harm-Minimisation Strategies for Electronic Gambling: The Efficacy of Computer Generated Self-Appraisal Messaging. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2015, 14, 597–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rockloff, M.J.; Donaldson, P.; Browne, M. Jackpot Expiry: An Experimental Investigation of a New EGM Player-Protection Feature. J. Gambl. Stud. 2015, 31, 1505–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folkvord, F.; Codagnone, C.; Bogliacino, F.; Veltri, G.; Lupianez-Villanueva, F.; Ivchenko, A.; Gaskell, G. Experimental evidence on measures to protect consumers of online gambling services. J. Behav. Econ. Policy 2019, 3, 20–29. [Google Scholar]
- Gainsbury, S.M.; Aro, D.; Ball, D.; Tobar, C.; Russell, A. Optimal content for warning messages to enhance consumer decision making and reduce problem gambling. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2093–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gainsbury, S.M.; Aro, D.; Ball, D.; Tobar, C.; Russell, A. Determining optimal placement for pop-up messages: Evaluation of a live trial of dynamic warning messages for electronic gaming machines. Int. Gambl. Stud. 2015, 15, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landon, J.; du Preez, K.P.; Bellringer, M.; Abbott, M.; Roberts, A. On the feasibility of in-venue observations of electronic gaming machine gamblers and game characteristics. J. Gambl. Issues 2017, 36, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer du Preez, K.; Landon, J.; Bellringer, M.; Garrett, N.; Abbott, M. The Effects of Pop-up Harm Minimisation Messages on Electronic Gaming Machine Gambling Behaviour in New Zealand. J. Gambl. Stud. 2016, 32, 1115–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rockloff, M.J.; Hing, N. The Impact of Jackpots on EGM Gambling Behavior: A Review. J. Gambl. Stud. 2013, 29, 775–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Auer, M.; Hopfgartner, N.; Griffiths, M.D. The effects of a mandatory play break on subsequent gambling among Norwegian video lottery terminal players. J. Behav. Addict. 2019, 8, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auer, M.; Griffiths, M.D. The Effect of a Mandatory Play Break on Subsequent Gambling Behavior among British Online Casino Players: A Large-Scale Real-World Study. J. Gambl. Stud. 2022, 39, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parke, A.; Dickinson, P.; O’Hare, L.; Wilson, L.; Westerman-Hughes, G.; Gerling, K. Effect of within-session breaks in play on responsible gambling behaviour during sustained monetary losses. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 41, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blaszczynski, A.; Cowley, E.; Anthony, C.; Hinsley, K. Breaks in Play: Do They Achieve Intended Aims? J. Gambl. Stud. 2015, 32, 789–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newall, P.W.S.; Weiss-Cohen, L.; Singmann, H.; Paul Boyce, W.; Walasek, L.; Rockloff, M.J. A speed-of-play limit reduces gambling expenditure in an online roulette game: Results of an online experiment. Addict. Behav. 2022, 127, 107229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martens, M.P.; Arterberry, B.J.; Takamatsu, S.K.; Masters, J.; Dude, K. The Efficacy of a Personalized Feedback-Only Intervention for At-Risk College Gamblers. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2015, 83, 494–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neighbors, C.; Rodriguez, L.M.; Rinker, D.V.; Gonzales, R.G.; Agana, M.; Tackett, J.L.; Foster, D.W. Efficacy of Personalized Normative Feedback as a Brief Intervention for College Student Gambling: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2015, 83, 500–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auer, M.M.; Griffiths, M.D. Testing normative and self-appraisal feedback in an online slot-machine pop-up in a real-world setting. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McGivern, P.; Hussain, Z.; Lipka, S.; Stupple, E. The impact of pop-up warning messages of losses on expenditure in a simulated game of online roulette: A pilot study. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Byrne, C.A.; Russell, A.M.T. Making EGMs Accountable: Can an Informative and Dynamic Interface Help Players Self-regulate? J. Gambl. Stud. 2020, 36, 1229–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jonsson, J.; Hodgins, D.C.; Munck, I.; Carlbring, P. Reaching Out to Big Losers: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Brief Motivational Contact Providing Gambling Expenditure Feedback. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2019, 33, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonsson, J.; Hodgins, D.C.; Munck, I.; Carlbring, P. Reaching out to big losers leads to sustained reductions in gambling over 1 year: A randomized controlled trial of brief motivational contact. Addiction 2020, 115, 1522–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonsson, J.; Hodgins, D.C.; Munck, I.; Carlbring, P. Reaching Out to Big Losers: How Different Types of Gamblers are Affected by a Brief Motivational Contact Initiated by the Gambling Provider. J. Gambl. Stud. 2021, 37, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, B.J.; Orlowski, S.; Smith, D.; Baigent, M.; Battersby, M.; Lawn, S. Understanding the business versus care paradox in gambling venues: A qualitative study of the perspectives from gamblers, venue staff and counsellors. Harm Reduct. J. 2018, 15, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hing, N.; Nuske, E. Responding to Problem Gamblers in the Venue: Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Challenges for Hospitality Staff. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 2012, 11, 146–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oakes, J.; Pols, R.; Lawn, S. The Frantic Seeking of Credit during Poker Machine Problem Gambling: A Public Health Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oakes, J.; Pols, R.; Lawn, S.; Battersby, M.; Lubman, D.I. ‘I’ll Just Pay the Rent Next Month’: An Exploratory Study Examining Facilitatory Cognitions among EGM Problem Gamblers. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2018, 17, 1564–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newall, P.W.S.; Walasek, L.; Ludvig, E.A. Equivalent gambling warning labels are perceived differently. Addiction 2020, 115, 1762–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Newall, P.W.S.; Walasek, L.; Ludvig, E.A. Percentage and Currency Framing of House-Edge Gambling Warning Labels. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 19, 1931–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mialon, M.; McCambridge, J. Alcohol industry corporate social responsibility initiatives and harmful drinking: A systematic review. Eur. J. Public Health 2018, 28, 664–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, S.; Lam, T.-H. The illusion of righteousness: Corporate social responsibility practices of the alcohol industry. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgins, D.C.; Young, M.M.; Currie, S.R.; Abbott, M.; Billi, R.; Brunelle, N.; Costes, J.-M.; Dufour, M.; Flores-Pajot, M.-C.; Olason, D.T.; et al. Lower-risk gambling limits: Linked analyses across eight countries. Int. Gambl. Stud. 2023, 23, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickerson, M.G. Gambling as an Addictive Behaviour Impaired Control, Harm Minimisation, Treatment and Prevention; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Inclusion | Exclusion |
---|---|
Describes and evaluates a gambling harm-minimisation tool. Uses an empirical approach to evaluate the impact of the gambling harm-minimisation tool on gamblers’ behaviour. Conducted within a real or simulated/laboratory-based gambling environment with “real” gamblers or individuals affected by gambling-related harm. Published in peer-reviewed journal. Written in English. | Does not describe and evaluate a gambling harm-minimisation tool. Does not use an empirical approach to examine the impact of the gambling harm-minimisation tool on gamblers’ behaviour. Does not involve actual gamblers or individuals affected by gambling-related harm. Grey literature (technical reports, conference presentations, dissertations, books). Not written in English. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Riley, B.J.; Oakes, J.; Lawn, S. Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 998. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21080998
Riley BJ, Oakes J, Lawn S. Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(8):998. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21080998
Chicago/Turabian StyleRiley, Ben J., Jane Oakes, and Sharon Lawn. 2024. "Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 8: 998. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21080998
APA StyleRiley, B. J., Oakes, J., & Lawn, S. (2024). Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(8), 998. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21080998