Effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours and gambling related harm: An umbrella review

McMahon, Naoimh E.; Thomson, Katie; Kaner, Eileen; Bambra, Clare

doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.048

Cited by 91 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The SR/MA's quality seems to be low in many fields of medicine. Among studies published in medicine to September 2019, in which the AMSTAR 2 was used as an instrument to evaluate the quality of SR/MA, 23 of 31 papers produced results similar to our study . In the six studies, the methodological quality of most (around 60%) of SRs was critical low to low .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

Storman

Jasińska

et al. 2020

Obesity Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary High‐quality systematic reviews (SR) and meta‐analyses (MA) are considered to be reliable sources of information. This study aims to assess the quality of studies published as SR or MA in the field of bariatrics in 2016 and 2017. We identified SR and MA in the field of bariatrics by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Eligible studies were those identified as SR/MA in the title/abstract, which aimed to assess any outcome in patients with morbid obesity undergoing or scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies, and assessed the quality of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of each SR/MA using AMSTAR 2 checklist and ROBIS tool, respectively. Seventy‐eight of 4236 references met inclusion criteria and were assessed for their quality/risk of bias. The methodological quality of 99% of all papers was classified as “critically low.” A total of 6% of the studies were at low risk of bias, and 78% were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The methodological quality of studies published in 2016 and 2017 as SR/MA is highly unsatisfactory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

Storman

Jasińska

et al. 2020

Obesity Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…pop-messages). Support for most of the preventive measures considered was weak and the general conclusion drawn was that the studies concerning RG measures reported the absence of a significant effect in terms of decreasing gambling-related harm (McMahon et al 2019). Furthermore, the reviews lacked scientific rigor.…”

Section: Reviews and Meta-analysis Focusing On Preventive Measures Inmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Another gambling-related harm preventive measure is supply reduction. This method has been evaluated in two recent systematic reviews (Meyer et al 2018;McMahon et al 2019). Both reviews state that there is a lack of research concerning supply reduction measures.…”

Section: Perspectives On Harm and Prevention In Gamblingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This claim is congruent with findings that suggest that supply reduction is the most effective preventative measure in reducing other problematic behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and tobacco use (Babor et al 2010). Studies investigating the reduction of gambling supply are not included in our review since there is a need to limit the aim and scope of the study, and because existent research is very recent (Meyer et al 2018;McMahon et al 2019).…”

Section: Perspectives On Harm and Prevention In Gamblingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An umbrella review focusing on preventive measures in gambling reported the publication of ten systematic reviews comprising 55 unique primary studies (McMahon et al 2019). Most of the systematic reviews reported on studies of interventions aimed at harm reduction and focused specific preventive measures, such as limit-setting or interventions incorporated into the design of gambling activities (e.g.…”

Section: Reviews and Meta-analysis Focusing On Preventive Measures Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of educational programs and consumer protection measures for gambling: an extension of previous reviews

Forsström

Spångberg

Petterson³

et al. 2020

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Besides supply reduction, preventive interventions to reduce harm from gambling include interventions for the reduction of demand and to limit negative consequences. Several interventions are available for gamblers, e.g. limit-setting. Reviews have been published examining the evidence for specific measures as well as evaluating the effect of different measures at an overall level. Only a few of these have used a systematic approach for their literature review. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is twofold. First, to assess the certainty of evidence of different preventive measures in the field of educational programs and consumer protection measures, including both land-based and online gambling. The second is to present shortcomings in eligible studies to highlight what type of information is needed in future studies. Method: This systematic review included measures administered in both real-life settings and online. Twenty-eight studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and had low or moderate risk of bias. Results: The results showed that only two measures (long term educational programs and personalized feedback) had an impact on gambling behavior. Follow-up period was short, and measures did not include gambling as a problem. The certainty in most outcomes, according to GRADE, was very low. Several shortcomings were found in the studies. Discussion: We concluded that the support for preventive measures is low and that a consensus statement regarding execution and methods to collect and analyze data for preventive gambling research is needed. Our review can serve as a starting point for future responsible gambling reviews since it evaluated certainty of evidence.

show abstract

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

Welch

Dewidar

Ghogomu

et al. 2022

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours and gambling related harm: An umbrella review

Cited by 91 publications

References 44 publications

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

A systematic review of educational programs and consumer protection measures for gambling: an extension of previous reviews

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About