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

Abstract

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.

Prevention and Harm Reduction Interventions for Adult Gambling at the Local Level: An Umbrella Review of Empirical Evidence

“…The restriction of ready access to cash can be considered as a moderately effective strategy [3,33,37,40]. A study found that the removal of ATMs in the vicinity of gambling venues reduced the expenditure on electronic gambling machines overall by 7% [45], and other authors identified this strategy as potentially effective.…”

“…[34], or nurses of geriatric patients [30]. Otherwise, staff and professionals may have difficulties in identifying indicators of problematic gamblers, and most of all may be reluctant to intervene [37].…”

“…A study evaluation of an informational campaign that used radio, newspaper and billboard advertisements reported a 70% increase in calls to the helpline and a 118% increase in customers requesting treatment [49]. However, Livingstone et al [37] conclude that there is no evidence of signage in gambling venues' effectiveness. More studies are needed in this area to better understand the real use of this information.…”

“…A deeply studied harm minimization technique is precommitment [3,30,31,37,39,40]. Precommitment involves strategies to limit one's gambling, such as money limits or time limits.…”

“…Second, specific characteristics may influence effectiveness. Livingstone et al [37] underline the importance of a universal and binding precommitment system. Matheson et al [30] suggest focusing on limiting the time spent because it is one of the most important indicators of problematic gambling.…”