Spielersperren in Deutschland: Stand der gesetzlichen Glücksspielregelungen und ihre Umsetzung

Motka, Franziska; Grüne, Bettina; Braun, Barbara; Kraus, Ludwig

doi:10.1055/a-0583-2888

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), only fragmentary information on self-exclusion programs from terrestrial gambling was provided. In Germany, exclusions from state-provided gambling are regulated nationwide by the German State Treaty on Gambling, whereas exclusions from commercially provided gambling are organized by each federal state separately (Motka, Grüne, Braun, & Kraus, 2018). Switzerland established a country-wide self-exclusion program based on the nationwide data sharing of excluded gamblers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsSelf-exclusion programs offer an intervention for individuals with problem gambling behavior. However, these programs are insufficiently used. This review describes sociodemographic features and gambling behavior of self-excluders as well as goals and motives for initiating self-exclusion from terrestrial and online gambling. In addition, use of further professional help and barriers to self-exclusion are examined.MethodsBased on systematic literature search and quality assessment, n = 16 original studies (13 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 1 mixed method) published between 1997 and 2017 in English or German language were analyzed. Results are presented for online and terrestrial gambling separately.ResultsOnline self-excluders were on average 10 years younger than terrestrial self-excluders. Self-exclusion was mainly motivated by financial problems, followed by feelings of losing control and problems with significant others. Financial problems and significant others were less important for online than for terrestrial gamblers. Main barriers for self-exclusion were complicated enrollment processes, lack of complete exclusion from all venues, little support from venue staff, and lack of adequate information on self-exclusion programs. Both self-excluders from terrestrial and online gambling had negative attitudes toward the need of professional addiction care.ConclusionTo exploit the full potential of self-exclusion as a measure of gambler protection, its acceptance and its utilization need to be increased by target-group-specific information addressing financial issues and the role of significant others, simplifying the administrative processes, facilitating self-exclusion at an early stage of the gambling career, offering self-determined exclusion durations, and promoting additional use of professional addiction care.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since 2008 gambling in Germany is organized by the State Treaty on Gambling (STG) and federal state-specific implementation laws, regulating state-run (governmental) and licensed (commercial) gambling. This resulted in regulations for the initiation and monitoring of SE for governmental gambling (casinos) but excluded commercial gambling providers (gambling halls) [ 20 ]. While, at the time of data collection, for the former, there was a nationwide exclusion system which could be applied for at any casino in Germany or by post, the regulations for gambling halls differed from federal state to federal state.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘We are not the ones to blame’. Gamblers’ and providers’ appraisal of self-exclusion in Germany

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Given low utilization by individuals experiencing gambling problems the potential of self-exclusion (SE) might be not fully exploited in Germany. This paper aims to gain insight into different actors’ perceptions and reflections on the problems and difficulties in the process of self-exclusion to delineate which specific attitudes hamper a successful implementation of SE. Methods 13 individual and four group interviews with individuals experiencing gambling problems and governmental or commercial gambling providers were examined. A Grounded Theory Approach was used to portray the opinions of these different actors on existing regulations of SE and to delineate potentially diverging interests between the distinct groups. Results The interviewees agreed on the usefulness of SE and consented that it is important to early recognize individuals experiencing gambling problems. They also considered the present practice insufficient but for different reasons. Individuals experiencing gambling problems and providers particularly disagreed on addressing individuals experiencing gambling problems. While individuals experiencing gambling problems stated that they had hardly ever been approached, providers argued that help offers were mostly rejected. Especially commercial providers also regarded insufficient German language skills and rapid fluctuation of guests as strong barriers to approaching individuals experiencing gambling problems. Interviewees from governmental venues furthermore suspected that commercial providers took addressing individuals experiencing gambling problems less seriously. Conclusion Our results emphasize the dilemma of conflicting interests in both individuals experiencing gambling problems and providers. Rather than acting against the economic interests of employers, venue staff blame individuals experiencing gambling problems for lack of problem recognition. Conversely, individuals experiencing gambling problems blame the providers for not offering help. To address individuals experiencing gambling problems appropriate staff training is required, and SE regulations need to be controlled by an independent body rather than by the providers themselves.

show abstract

“…Selbst-oder Fremdsperren (durch Dritte) verhindern ein weiteres Glücksspielen und können so zur Verbesserung der finanziellen Lage, Steigerung des Kontrollempfindens und Verringerung psychischer Probleme wie Depression und Angst beitragen [3]. Bei rechtzeitigem Einsatz unterstützen sie als präventive Maßnahme den Schutz Glücksspielender [4]. Darüber hinaus stellen Spielersperren für Glücksspielende meist eine geringere Hürde als die Inanspruchnahme therapeutischer Hilfe dar [5].…”

Section: Pathologisches Spielen Als Suchtkrankheit -Spielersperre Alsunclassified

“…Außerdem liegt bei Glücksspielanbieter die hierfür notwendige Qualifizierung nicht vor [7]. Dies schreckt in Folge Spielende davon ab, eine Spielersperre zu beantragen [4].…”

Section: Gesetzliche Regelungen Zu Spielersperren In Deutschlandunclassified

Spiel, Satz und Sucht! Vom Spielen und Sperren

Kraus¹,

Sedlacek²,

Loy³

et al. 2019

Suchttherapie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spielersperren können als präventive Schutzmaßnahme oder schadensbegrenzende Intervention bei problematischem und pathologischem Glücksspielen eingesetzt werden. Dennoch fallen die Nutzungszahlen in Deutschland äußerst gering aus. Neben Interessenskonflikten, Angst vor Stigmatisierung und anderen negative Einflussfaktoren trägt die Abwesenheit einer fördernden gesetzlichen Regulation in Deutschland hierzu bei.

show abstract

Spielersperren in Deutschland: Stand der gesetzlichen Glücksspielregelungen und ihre Umsetzung

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

‘We are not the ones to blame’. Gamblers’ and providers’ appraisal of self-exclusion in Germany

Spiel, Satz und Sucht! Vom Spielen und Sperren

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About