Fair Game: Producing gambling research

Cassidy, Rebecca; Loussouarn, Claire; Pisac, Andrea

doi:10.11575/prism/9507

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is still dominated by scholars who favour pathologising approaches and quantitative methods, most of whom belong to the disciplines of psychology, psychiatry and medicine (Shaffer et al, 2020;Christensen et al, 2022). The inclusion of other approaches and methods capable of analysing structural and political questions about gambling, coming from psychology, sociology or geography, among other disciplines, remains in dispute (Cassidy et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another relevant element in understanding current directions in prevention and public health research is the distribution of disciplines involved. The most influential journals and the concepts most used in gambling studies derive still from the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and medicine (Cassidy et al, 2013). Furthermore, most publications in these journals deal with issues related to the excessive gambling of individuals and their subsequent categorisation (Ibid.).…”

Section: Prevention Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moving Prevention of Gambling Harm Upstream: Opportunities in Social Policy and Research

Lakidain

Fernandez

2022

EPSIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the specificities of the policymaking and research communities to explain why policies to prevent gambling disorder and other gambling-related harms have seen little change over the last two decades. Although existing knowledge on these issues suggests the implementation of prevention interventions based on public health perspectives, there are few government-led initiatives that adopt broad approaches beyond those advocated by the Responsible Gambling perspective. This situation would be influenced by two communities of actors with distinct professional cultures: policy makers face general incompatibilities with prevention policies, which are complex and go beyond political timeframes; gambling researchers, in turn, operate in fields dominated by approaches oriented towards measuring gambling disorder and with little interest in structural issues. To address this situation, the text advocates emphasising socio-economic inequalities related to gambling by the research field and improving science communication strategies as a means of influencing action to reduce the overall negative consequences of gambling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prevention Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Prevention of Gambling Harm Upstream: Opportunities in Social Policy and Research

Lakidain

Fernandez

2022

EPSIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues?

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of electronic gambling machines (EGMs) in Australia and New Zealand constitutes the largest sector of the gambling industry. The costs arising from the harms of gambling detract significantly from its benefits, and in all Australian jurisdictions various policy measures have been implemented to reduce these harms. If successful, these would maximise the net benefits associated with EGM gambling. This article reviews the available evidence for a range of these practices, particularly those implemented within EGM venues via 'codes of practice'. These codes of practice are intended to give effect to the principles of 'responsible gambling' within EGM venues. These measures are: selfexclusion, signage, messages, interaction with gamblers, the removal of ATMs from gambling venues, and 'responsible gambling' assessed overall in a venue context. In addition, we review the evidence in support of two major recommendations of the Productivity Commission's 2010 report into gambling, pre-commitment and one-dollar maximum wagers. We conclude that there is a modest level of evidence supporting some measures, notably self-exclusion and, to a greater extent, the removal of ATMs. There is also some evidence that 'responsible gambling' measures have, collectively, reduced the harms associated with gambling. However, there is limited evidence to confirm the effectiveness of most individual 'responsible gambling' measures actually implemented in venues. Further, policy measures implemented outside the control of venues (such as ATM removal, reduction in bet limits, and the prohibition of smoking) appear to be associated with more significant effects, based on analysis of EGM revenue data in Victoria. The evidence for prospective measures is necessarily limited since the ultimate test is post-implementation efficacy, but there is growing evidence to suggest that precommitment, one-dollar maximum bets or other machine design changes may yield significantly more effective harm minimisation effects than in-venue practices such as signage or, indeed, self-exclusion. In considering evidence about the effects of existing or prospective measures it is important to emphasise that packages of measures might be more effective than single ones, and that an inability to confirm a statistically significant effect does not mean that no effect exists.

show abstract

Fair Game: Producing gambling research

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Moving Prevention of Gambling Harm Upstream: Opportunities in Social Policy and Research

Moving Prevention of Gambling Harm Upstream: Opportunities in Social Policy and Research

What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About