A cross-cultural comparison of population gambling patterns and regulatory frameworks: France and Québec

Kairouz, Sylvia; Paradis, Catherine; Nadeau, Louise; Tovar, Marie-Line; Pousset, Maud

doi:10.1057/jphp.2016.20

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, 11 papers measure the impact of gambling policies or regulations on gambling behaviour. Measurements vary from self‐reported data (Auer et al, 2018; Auer & Griffiths, 2020; Engebø et al, 2021; Kairouz et al, 2016; Ludwig et al, 2012; Planzer et al, 2014; Rossow & Hansen, 2016) to multiple impact measurement (Carran, 2013; Miers, 1996; Waugh, 2016) and the financial impact on tax revenue (Gandullia & Leporatti, 2019; Radvan, 2017). Overall, the results of these studies indicate that wide‐reaching public health‐oriented policies, such as availability restrictions, are effective in preventing gambling harm.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of gambling policy research in Europe

Aimo,

Bassoli,

Marionneau

2023

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Europe, gambling policy is conditioned by different administrative levels, including national authorities and the EU, as well as institutions of the European Economic Area (EEA). The legal framework of the EU/EEA requires Member States to pursue evidence‐based policy. The current scoping review focuses on what kind of policy research is available on gambling in the European context to support evidence‐based policy. We searched three scientific databases for research literature on gambling regulation and policy in the European context. The final sample consists of 88 papers. We analysed the corpus with Term Frequency‐Inverse Document Frequency mapping, and, narratively, by applying the policy cycle phases (agenda‐setting, formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation). Overall, the results show that gambling policy research is a growing field in Europe, and the policy cycle describes the available literature amply. The largest part of the existing research concerns the evaluation phase, while the formulation and implementation phases are under‐represented. The findings are discussed in terms of the main outcomes, as well as in terms of the gaps in the existing research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of gambling policy research in Europe

Aimo,

Bassoli,

Marionneau

2023

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Problem gambling is defined by a score greater than 3 and includes those at moderate risk and with probable GD 56. This validated tool57 has been used in recent gambling prevalence studies in Canada, as well as in our current study of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the general population who gamble 21 58…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experience of LGBTQIA2S+ populations with gambling during the COVID-19 pandemic: protocol for a mixed-methods study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionResearch undertaken since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic has provided us information about the impact of the pandemic on the gambling habits of the general population. However, very little is known about certain subgroups at increased risk of developing gambling disorder, such as the LGBTQIA2S+ population. The purpose of this study is to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gambling behaviours among LGBTQIA2S+ individuals. In addition, we want to understand the experiences of the LGBTQIA2S+ population with gambling disorder and identify interventions that LGBTQIA2S+ people have found to be effective in addressing problem gambling during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods and analysisThis study has a sequential explanatory mixed-method design in two phases over 2 years. The first phase is a correlational study. We will conduct a cross-sectional survey using a stratified random sampling among Canadian residents who are 18 years of age or older, self-identify as sexually and gender-diverse (ie, LGBTQIA2S+) and have gambled at least once in the previous 12 months. This survey will be administered online via a web panel (n=1500). The second phase is a qualitative study. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with LGBTQIA2S+ people with problematic gambling (n=30).Ethics and disseminationThis research project has been ethically and scientifically approved by the Research Ethics Committee and by the CIUSSS de l’Estrie—CHUS scientific evaluation committee on 3 March 2022 (reference number: 2022-4633—LGBTQ-JHA). Electronic and/or written informed consent, depending on the data collection format (online survey and online or in-person interviews), will be obtained from each participant. A copy of the consent form and contact information will be delivered to each participant.

show abstract

“…These differences have been argued to make it difficult to evaluate any cross-jurisdictional differences, including regime efficiency, using prevalence rates [37]. Kairouz et al [34] also note that the levels of problem gambling within a population are probably not the most appropriate measure for evaluating to comparative advantages of gambling policies or regimes.…”

Section: Problem Gambling Prevalencementioning

confidence: 99%

How Do State Gambling Monopolies Affect Levels of Gambling Harm?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This systematic literature review evaluates the potential of gambling monopolies to affect gambling harms. It compares the occurrence of gambling harms in jurisdictions with gambling monopolies to jurisdictions with license-based regimes. Recent Findings The review identified 21 publications concerning three gambling-related harm indicators: problem gambling prevalence, total consumption, and the appearance of conflicts of interest. Due to the dearth of literature, concept papers and older publications were also included. Summary Results show that there is a paucity of empirical research on the effectiveness of different regulatory regimes in affecting gambling harms. Available research demonstrates that monopolistic regimes appear to perform somewhat better in terms of problem gambling prevalence and total consumption but may also be more prone to conflicts of interest than license-based regimes. Monopolistic configurations also differ between themselves, and issues such as availability, accessibility, product range, scope of preventive work, monitoring, as well as the recognition of the public health approach may better predict the levels of harm in society than the existence of a monopoly.

show abstract

A cross-cultural comparison of population gambling patterns and regulatory frameworks: France and Québec

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

A scoping review of gambling policy research in Europe

A scoping review of gambling policy research in Europe

Experience of LGBTQIA2S+ populations with gambling during the COVID-19 pandemic: protocol for a mixed-methods study

How Do State Gambling Monopolies Affect Levels of Gambling Harm?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About