Who Really Wins? Efficacy of a Croatian Youth Gambling Prevention Program

Abstract

This paper reports on the development and pilot evaluation of a Croatian school-based youth gambling prevention program "Who really wins?". The program is aimed at minimizing risk and enhancing protective factors related to youth gambling. A short-term evaluation of the program was conducted with a sample of 190 first and second year high-school students (67.6% boys, aged 14-17 years; average age 15.61). An experimental design with two groups (Training vs. No Training) and two measurement sessions (pre-test and post-test sessions) was used to evaluate change in problem gambling awareness, cognitive distortions, knowledge of the nature of random events as well as in social skills. Results showed significant changes in the post-test sessions, which can be attributed to changes in the Training group. We observed a decrease in risk factors, namely better knowledge about gambling and less gambling related cognitive distortions. Immediate effects on protective factors such as problem solving skills, refusal skills, and general self-efficacy were not observed. Findings also show program effects to be the same for both boys and girls, students from different types of schools, for those with different learning aptitudes, as well as for those at different risk levels with regard to their gambling, which speaks in favour of the program's universality. The program had no iatrogenic effects on behaviour change and shows promise as an effective tool for youth gambling prevention. Future research and a long-term evaluation are needed to determine whether the observed changes are also linked to behavioural change.

The Efficacy of a Gambling Prevention Program Among High-School Students

“…The results obtained in the experimental group were in line with previous preventive initiatives found in the literature (e.g., Donati et al 2014;Taylor and Hillyard 2009;Ferland et al 2002). Nevertheless, the intervention did not show any effect on gambling frequency, amount of money spent gambling, which confirm other prevention programs (Williams et al 2010;Huic et al 2017).…”

“…In addition, among preventive gambling initiatives, primary prevention programs provide a low-cost tool to target individuals who may not yet have engaged in the behaviour, but who are in an age group which is particularly susceptible for the development of problem gambling (Williams et al 2010). In fact, the majority of prevention programs are classified in primary prevention programs, and most of them are considered to be within the category of school-based prevention programs (Huic et al 2017). School-based programs are the most frequent prevention initiatives, and constitute a relevant part of an overall prevention strategy as they provide an intervention to an age group who is vulnerable and can prevent an escalation of problem behaviours into adulthood (Williams et al 2010;Oh et al 2017).…”

“…Furthermore, after the intervention, participants reported significantly more negative attitudes toward gambling and showed a decline in problem gambling frequency. Similarly, Huic et al (2017) developed another school-based gambling prevention program with Croatian adolescents, aged 14-17 years, which focused on cognitive distortions, knowledge of the nature of random events, as well as on other skills (such as problem-solving skills, refusal and self-efficacy). The results of the program showed a significant decrease in risk factors, more specifically a better knowledge about gambling and less gambling-related cognitive distortions.…”

Gambling-Related Distortions and Problem Gambling in Adolescents: A Model to Explain Mechanisms and Develop Interventions

“…Concerning the effects on gambling behavior, whereas some previous studies reported no behavioral changes despite improvements in knowledge and the reduction of cognitive errors ( Gaboury and Ladouceur, 1993 ; Ferland et al, 2005 ; Turner et al, 2008 ; Huic et al, 2017 ), some changes were produced in gambling behavior. Specifically, in line with previous studies ( Williams, 2002 ; Donati et al, 2014 ) we observed that only adolescents who attended the training program reduce their gambling frequency from pre-test to follow-up.…”

“…In evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention, we also wanted to take into account some relevant methodological issues. First of all, although a short-term change of gambling-erroneous cognitions have been obtained in several of these preventive initiatives (e.g., Ferland et al, 2002 , 2005 ; Capitanucci et al, 2010 ; Williams et al, 2010 ; Donati et al, 2014 ; Huic et al, 2017 ), only few of them verified the stability of these effects over time ( Gaboury and Ladouceur, 1993 ; Capitanucci et al, 2010 ; Donati et al, 2014 ). Thus, to provide evidence of the strength and stability of the change in the current intervention program, we assessed the short-term and long-term effects on gambling-related cognitions and also the long-term effects on gambling behavior.…”