Usage of a Responsible Gambling Tool: A Descriptive Analysis and Latent Class Analysis of User Behavior - PubMed (original) (raw)

Usage of a Responsible Gambling Tool: A Descriptive Analysis and Latent Class Analysis of User Behavior

David Forsström et al. J Gambl Stud. 2016 Sep.

Abstract

Gambling is a common pastime around the world. Most gamblers can engage in gambling activities without negative consequences, but some run the risk of developing an excessive gambling pattern. Excessive gambling has severe negative economic and psychological consequences, which makes the development of responsible gambling strategies vital to protecting individuals from these risks. One such strategy is responsible gambling (RG) tools. These tools track an individual's gambling history and supplies personalized feedback and might be one way to decrease excessive gambling behavior. However, research is lacking in this area and little is known about the usage of these tools. The aim of this article is to describe user behavior and to investigate if there are different subclasses of users by conducting a latent class analysis. The user behaviour of 9528 online gamblers who voluntarily used a RG tool was analysed. Number of visits to the site, self-tests made, and advice used were the observed variables included in the latent class analysis. Descriptive statistics show that overall the functions of the tool had a high initial usage and a low repeated usage. Latent class analysis yielded five distinct classes of users: self-testers, multi-function users, advice users, site visitors, and non-users. Multinomial regression revealed that classes were associated with different risk levels of excessive gambling. The self-testers and multi-function users used the tool to a higher extent and were found to have a greater risk of excessive gambling than the other classes.

Keywords: Decrease gambling; Initial high usage; Latent class analysis; Low repeated usage; Responsible gambling tool; User behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Internet Gamblers Differ on Social Variables: A Latent Class Analysis.
  Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Achab S, Monney G, Thorens G, Dufour M, Zullino D, Rothen S. Khazaal Y, et al. J Gambl Stud. 2017 Sep;33(3):881-897. doi: 10.1007/s10899-016-9664-0. J Gambl Stud. 2017. PMID: 28028687
• Latent Class Analysis of Gambling Activities in a Sample of Young Swiss Men: Association with Gambling Problems, Substance Use Outcomes, Personality Traits and Coping Strategies.
  Studer J, Baggio S, Mohler-Kuo M, Simon O, Daeppen JB, Gmel G. Studer J, et al. J Gambl Stud. 2016 Jun;32(2):421-40. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9547-9. J Gambl Stud. 2016. PMID: 25929440
• Experiences of Playscan: Interviews with users of a responsible gambling tool.
  Forsström D, Jansson-Fröjmark M, Hesser H, Carlbring P. Forsström D, et al. Internet Interv. 2017 Mar 23;8:53-62. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2017.03.003. eCollection 2017 Jun. Internet Interv. 2017. PMID: 30135829 Free PMC article.
• Non-substance-addictive behaviors in youth: pathological gambling and problematic Internet use.
  Brezing C, Derevensky JL, Potenza MN. Brezing C, et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2010 Jul;19(3):625-41. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2010.03.012. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2010. PMID: 20682225 Free PMC article. Review.
• [Internet gambling: what are the risks?].
  Bonnaire C. Bonnaire C. Encephale. 2012 Feb;38(1):42-9. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2011.01.014. Epub 2011 Apr 8. Encephale. 2012. PMID: 22381723 Review. French.

Cited by

• Further Exploration of the Psychometric Properties of GamTest: A Rasch Analysis.
  Forsström D, Rozental A, Kottorp A, Lindner P, Jansson-Fröjmark M, Hesser H. Forsström D, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 30;18(9):4824. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094824. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 33946511 Free PMC article.
• Strategies to customize responsible gambling messages: a review and focus group study.
  Gainsbury SM, Abarbanel BLL, Philander KS, Butler JV. Gainsbury SM, et al. BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 17;18(1):1381. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6281-0. BMC Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30558568 Free PMC article. Review.
• Personalized Behavioral Feedback for Online Gamblers: A Real World Empirical Study.
  Auer MM, Griffiths MD. Auer MM, et al. Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 28;7:1875. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01875. eCollection 2016. Front Psychol. 2016. PMID: 27965611 Free PMC article.
• The effect of loss-limit reminders on gambling behavior: A real-world study of Norwegian gamblers.
  Auer M, Hopfgartner N, Griffiths MD. Auer M, et al. J Behav Addict. 2018 Dec 1;7(4):1056-1067. doi: 10.1556/2006.7.2018.106. Epub 2018 Nov 12. J Behav Addict. 2018. PMID: 30418076 Free PMC article.
• Responsible Gambling Telephone Intervention to High-Risk Gamblers by a State-Owned Gambling Operator in Sweden: Study Protocol for a Study on Effectiveness, User Satisfaction, and Acceptability.
  Håkansson A, Franklin K, Dahlström M, Lyckberg A. Håkansson A, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 4;17(23):9069. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17239069. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. PMID: 33561040 Free PMC article.

References

1. 1. Harm Reduct J. 2008 Aug 06;5:27 - PubMed
2. 1. Psychiatry Res. 2010 Jul 30;178(2):401-7 - PubMed
3. 1. J Gambl Stud. 2014 Jun;30(2):503-19 - PubMed
4. 1. J Gambl Stud. 2015 Dec;31(4):1337-51 - PubMed
5. 1. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009 Aug;12(4):413-21 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Springer

• Other Literature Sources

  • scite Smart Citations

• Medical

  • MedlinePlus Health Information