The Extent and Distribution of Gambling-Related Harms and the Prevention Paradox in a British Population Survey - PubMed (original) (raw)

The Extent and Distribution of Gambling-Related Harms and the Prevention Paradox in a British Population Survey

Natale Canale et al. J Behav Addict. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives To examine whether the "prevention paradox" applies to British individuals in relation to gambling-related harm. Methods Data were derived from 7,756 individuals participating in the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010, a comprehensive interview-based survey conducted in Great Britain between November 2009 and May 2010. Gambling-related harm was assessed using an adapted version of the DSM-IV Pathological Gambling criteria. The previous year's prevalence of problem gamblers was examined using the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Gambling involvement was measured by gambling frequency and gambling participation (gambling volume as expressed by time and money spent gambling). Results The prevalence rates for past-year gambling harms were dependence harm (16.4%), social harm (2.2%), and chasing losses (7.9%). Gambling-related harms were distributed across low- to moderate-risk gamblers (and not limited to just problem gamblers) and were reported by the majority of gamblers who were non-high time and spend regular gamblers than high time and spend regular gamblers. Conclusions The prevention paradox is a promising way of examining gambling-related harm. This suggests that prevention of gambling might need to consider the population approach to minimizing gambling harm.

Keywords: Great Britain; gambling; gambling involvement; harms; population studies; prevention paradox.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Prevalence of gambling-related harm provides evidence for the prevention paradox.
  Browne M, Rockloff MJ. Browne M, et al. J Behav Addict. 2018 Jun 1;7(2):410-422. doi: 10.1556/2006.7.2018.41. Epub 2018 May 23. J Behav Addict. 2018. PMID: 29788761 Free PMC article.
• The prevention paradox applies to some but not all gambling harms: Results from a Finnish population-representative survey.
  Browne M, Volberg R, Rockloff M, Salonen AH. Browne M, et al. J Behav Addict. 2020 Jul 7;9(2):371-382. doi: 10.1556/2006.2020.00018. Print 2020 Jun. J Behav Addict. 2020. PMID: 32644932 Free PMC article.
• National burden of gambling in Japan: an estimation from an online-based cross-sectional investigation and national epidemiological survey.
  Hwang C, So R, Hashimoto N, Baba T, Matsushita S, Browne M, Murai T, Watanabe N, Takiguchi N. Hwang C, et al. BMC Public Health. 2024 Jun 26;24(1):1703. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19197-z. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38926686 Free PMC article.
• Prevention paradox logic and problem gambling: Does low-risk gambling impose a greater burden of harm than high-risk gambling?
  Delfabbro P, King D. Delfabbro P, et al. J Behav Addict. 2017 Jun 1;6(2):163-167. doi: 10.1556/2006.6.2017.022. Epub 2017 Apr 20. J Behav Addict. 2017. PMID: 28425779 Free PMC article. Review.
• The changing epidemiology of gambling disorder and gambling-related harm: public health implications.
  Abbott MW. Abbott MW. Public Health. 2020 Jul;184:41-45. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.04.003. Epub 2020 Apr 30. Public Health. 2020. PMID: 32402593 Review.

Cited by

• High Recreational Gamblers Show Increased Stimulatory Effects of an Acute Laboratory Gambling Challenge.
  Miller L, Gordh AS. Miller L, et al. J Gambl Stud. 2021 Mar;37(1):299-318. doi: 10.1007/s10899-020-09952-3. J Gambl Stud. 2021. PMID: 32406011 Free PMC article.
• At-risk gambling in patients with severe mental illness: Prevalence and associated features.
  Bergamini A, Turrina C, Bettini F, Toccagni A, Valsecchi P, Sacchetti E, Vita A. Bergamini A, et al. J Behav Addict. 2018 Jun 1;7(2):348-354. doi: 10.1556/2006.7.2018.47. Epub 2018 Jun 5. J Behav Addict. 2018. PMID: 29865864 Free PMC article.
• Promoting safer gambling through social norms and goal setting: A qualitative process analysis of participants' experiences in the EROGamb 2.0 feasibility trial.
  Bush-Evans R, Arden-Close E, Thomas S, McAlaney J, Wang R, Bolat E, Hodge S, Hamson-Ford A, Phalp K. Bush-Evans R, et al. Internet Interv. 2024 Nov 20;38:100790. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2024.100790. eCollection 2024 Dec. Internet Interv. 2024. PMID: 39764431 Free PMC article.
• The Evolution of Gambling-Related Harm Measurement: Lessons from the Last Decade.
  Browne M, Rawat V, Tulloch C, Murray-Boyle C, Rockloff M. Browne M, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 21;18(9):4395. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094395. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 33919050 Free PMC article. Review.

References

1. 1. Abbott M., Binde P., Hodgins D., Korn D., Pereira A., Volberg R., Williams R. (2013). Conceptual framework of harmful gambling: An International Collaboration. Guelph, Ontario: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
2. 1. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
3. 1. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental health disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
4. 1. Auer M., Griffiths M. D. (2013). Limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of online gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 647–660. doi:<10.1007/s10899-012-9332-y> - DOI - PubMed
5. 1. Blaszczynski A. (2009). Problem gambling: We should measure harm rather than ‘cases’. Addiction, 104, 1072–1074. doi:<10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02505.x> - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Europe PubMed Central
  • PubMed Central
  • Sheridan PubFactory

• Other Literature Sources

  • scite Smart Citations

• Medical

  • MedlinePlus Health Information

• Miscellaneous

  • NCI CPTAC Assay Portal