Skip to main content

What is known about population level programs designed to address gambling-related harm: rapid review of the evidence

Abstract

Background

Gambling and gambling-related harm attract significant researcher and policy attention. The liberalisation of gambling in most western countries is strongly associated with a marked rise in gambling activity and increases in gambling-related harm experienced at the population level. Programs to address gambling-related harm have traditionally focused on individuals who demonstrate problematic gambling behaviour, despite clear evidence of the effectiveness of a public health approach to high-risk activities like gambling. Little is known about the availability or efficacy of programs to address gambling-related harm at a population level.

Methods

The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation commissioned a rapid evidence review of the available evidence on programs designed to reduce gambling-related harm at a population level. The review was conducted using a public health and harm reduction lens. MEDLINE, ProQuest Central and PsychInfo databases were searched systematically. Included studies were published in English between 2017 – 2023 from all countries with gambling policy contexts and public health systems comparable to Australia’s; included primary data; and focused on primary and/or secondary prevention of gambling-related harm or problems.

Results

One hundred and sixty-seven articles were eligible for inclusion. Themes identified in the literature included: risk and protective factors; primary prevention; secondary prevention; tertiary prevention; target population group; and public health approach. The evidence review revealed a gap in empirical evidence around effective interventions to reduce gambling-related harm at the population level, particularly from a public health perspective.

Conclusions

Addressing gambling-related harm requires a nuanced, multi-layered approach that acknowledges the complex social, environmental, and commercial nature of gambling and associated harms. Moreover, evidence demonstrates community programs to reduce gambling-related harm are more successful in reducing harm when based on sound theory of co-design and address the social aspects that contribute to harm.

Background

Gambling is entrenched leisure activity in Australian society, sanctioned and regulated by government. Approximately 35% of all Australian adults spent money in a ‘typical month’ on one or more gambling activities [1]. The estimated per capita personal spend is $133 for a typical month [2]. In the Australian state of Victoria, gambling activity associated with poker machines was estimated to be $2.7 billion for 2018–2019 [1,2], with the estimated national spend at $12.7 billion for the same period. This spend on gambling activities means Australia has been described as the gambling capital of the world [3]. The negative impact, or harms, associated with gambling (i.e. gambling-related harm) are complex but well understood [4]. Gambling-related harm extends beyond the person who gambles to ‘affected others’ and the community. Harms are seen across financial, emotional, health, cultural, workplace and criminal domains with increasing lasting impact from a temporal perspective [4].

Attempts to understand and address gambling-related harm have mainly focused on individuals who gamble and their problematic behaviours and/or addiction issues. Language used to describe harm experienced as a result of gambling has varied over time and demonstrates a shifting perspective in terms of where harm originates and where responsibility may lie. The dominant discourse has been around ‘responsible gambling’ and ‘problem gamblers’, which propagates the notion of personal responsibility and problematic or dangerous personal characteristics and behaviours [5]. Critics of the responsible gambling view of gambling harm argue that this individualistic approach fails to appreciate the broad and complex nature of gambling-related harm beyond the individual who gambles [6]. Calls to adopt a public health approach, informed by principles of harm reduction, to gambling and gambling-related harm have resounded for many years [6,7]. Harm reduction, or harm minimisation, is generally associated with reducing adverse impacts from addiction practices where abstinence is not a desired outcome but adverse health outcomes are reduced as much as practicable [8]. Crucially, language has shifted from an individual focus—the ‘problem gambler’ demonstrating ‘problem gambling’ who should engage in ‘responsible gambling’—to a broader, more nuanced view of where and how gambling-related harm is experienced [4]. Specifically, Langham et al. (2016) take a social view of gambling-related harm to define it as:

Any initial or exacerbated adverse consequences due to an engagement with gambling that leads to a decrement to the health or wellbeing of an individual, family unit, community or population. [4]

A public health approach is helpful to design and deliver programs to address gambling-related harm when a social view of gambling is adopted, [6]. Programs designed using a public health approach can focus on primary, secondary or tertiary prevention, or incorporate aspects of each level of prevention [9]. Public health approaches include preventing harm, early intervention to minimise likelihood of harm, and treating harm [9].

Legislation mandates in some Australian states requires an identified proportion of all gambling revenue is dedicated to treating and preventing gambling-related harm [10,11], alongside establishing quasi-autonomous non-government agencies (QANGOs) responsible for reducing gambling-related harm [12]. This rapid review was undertaken to inform the creation of a programming framework for the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation that has operated for over 10 years, in Victoria, Australia to reduce the social, health and economic costs of gambling-related harm via a public health approach.

This rapid review focused on identifying available evidence about effective public health responses to gambling-related harm by examining international, English language, peer reviewed literature on:

  • What is known about programs designed to address gambling-related harm?

  • What evidence is there of the impact of gambling-related harm prevention programs on priority population groups?

  • What is known about the risk and protective factors for gambling-related harm, particularly in priority population groups?

The key purpose of this review was to inform what action could be taken at the population health level.

Methods

Search strategy

A rapid evidence review is an assessment of available evidence related to a current policy or practice issue [13,14]. It is a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of a systematic review are simplified to expedite the process. As such, we adopted the procedure as described by Haby et al. [14]. A mnemonic was used to help construct the search strategy (PICO: Population; phenomenon/Intervention of interest; Context; and Outcome) [15]. All reporting was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [16]. Given the public health focus of this review, we systematically searched three key databases (MEDLINE, ProQuest and PsycInfo). We also conducted a grey literature search, which will not be reported.

We used a combination of terms for searching databases to elicit responses to the research questions, using the following key word combinations:

(gambling OR responsible gambling OR problem gambling) AND (harm reduction OR harm minimisation OR prevention) AND (access AND exposure AND community AND stigma AND uptake AND capability).

Searches were limited to literature published between January 2017 to November 2023 from countries with gambling policy contexts and public health systems similar to Australia, like the UK, USA, Canada, and New Zealand. These countries all have a hybrid welfare and market model of health care delivery and/or a similar proportion of GDP spend on public health [17].The decision to limit the search timeframe was a pragmatic one. Rapid evidence reviews often require tighter windows for age of evidence, and an existing systematic review addressing similar research questions conducted in 2017 further influenced our selection of search timeframe.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were considered for inclusion if they: referred to prevention programs that primarily focused on gambling-related harm or problems; were focused on primary, secondary and/or tertiary prevention of gambling-related harm; and/or included primary data.

Studies were excluded if they were: studies on clinical interventions for individuals with a diagnosis of pathological gambling, as per Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) [18]; or described non-applied research.

For this review, we adopted Langham’s (2016) definition of gambling-related harm described above. All articles that made specific reference to programs designed to address gambling-related harm were considered for inclusion. Given the paucity of available evidence, we did not assess the quality of any articles to avoid excluding data based on research design.

Data extraction

The research team discussed the literature identified and agreed upon common themes present across the literature that were relevant to the research questions. Peer reviewed literature was loaded into the screening and data extraction software Covidence to help ensure rigor and reproducibility [19]. Each included citation was independently screened by a member of the research team (SC and VW), with conflicts and queries assessed by a third member of the research team (DR).

Results

Searches returned 1559 articles, of which 696 were duplicates. Following title and abstract screening, 319 articles were assessed at full-text stage, with 152 excluded. Excluded articles were either: outside the timeline for capture (n = 74); not within the study scope (n = 57); had limited relevant information (n = 11); editorials (n = 7); included the wrong study outcome measures (n = 2); or a correction (n = 1). Hence, a total of 166 articles met the criteria for inclusion and were included for data extraction. A PRISMA diagram relating to this process is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram of included citations

One hundred and sixty six articles were included in the review: 93 quantitative studies; 28 qualitative studies; 30 review studies (including 12 systematic reviews); 5 mixed methods studies; 8 randomised controlled trials; 1 process/program evaluations; and 1 Cochrane systematic review (see Table 1). The studies were from 20 national jurisdictions: Australia (n = 28); USA (n = 24); Canada (n = 18); Spain (n = 10); Germany (n = 7); Italy (n = 7); United Kingdom (n = 7); France (n = 5); Croatia (n = 4); Finland (n = 4); Sweden (n = 3); Norway (n = 3); New Zealand (n = 3); Switzerland (n = 2); Korea (n = 2); Poland (n = 2); China (n = 2); Portugal (n = 1); Singapore (n = 1) Cyprus (n = 1); international collaborations (n = 3). Literature reviews were not assigned a national jurisdiction.

Table 1 Data table for included citations

Results were recorded and arranged according to the research questions and the project focus on a public health perspective with relevant themes from the literature: risk and protective factors; secondary prevention/harm reduction; primary prevention/early intervention; target population group; public health approach; and tertiary prevention/treatment.

Q1. What is known about programs designed to address gambling-related harm?

Evidence related to gambling-related harm prevention can broadly be categorised according to levels of prevention: primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. For readability, findings will be presented accordingly.

Primary prevention

In large part, evidence around primary prevention or early intervention for gambling-related harm programs were school or university-based and tended to be educative programs targeting cognitive distortions or misconceptions around gambling risk [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Several literature reviews, some systematic, referred to successful primary prevention programs in schools. They found that programs that were multifaceted and addressed context as well as individual attitudes and beliefs were more effective at reducing at-risk or problematic factors, like misperceptions of gambling and illusions of control, in the longer term [22,34,35]. Grande-Gosende et al., (2019) conducted a systematic review of evidence related to programs designed for college/university students and found that programs that incorporated Personalised Normative Feedback were the most effective in terms of reducing at-risk or problem gambling among young men.

Several included studies provided primary data related to program outcomes and effectiveness [29,30,31,32,36]. Donati et al., (2018) investigated gambling-related cognitive distortions (or mindware distortions, where mindware is the rules, procedures and strategies derived from past learning used to solve problems [37]) confirming effectiveness of tailored interventions to address them. Recommendations suggested that prevention strategies address mindware problems as they can be considered predictors of gambling-related cognitive distortions. St-Pierre et al., (2017) examined the impact of targeting Negative Anticipatory Emotions and key Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB [38]) constructs in modification of gambling beliefs, intentions and behaviours in an adolescent gambling tool—the Clean Break video [32]. Results indicated a small but statistically significant increase in positive gambling attitudes and positive peer and family subjective norms at post-intervention and follow up, where positive is indicative of anti-gambling.

In terms of causal pathways, many of the included studies examined relationships between sociodemographic factors of individuals and either risk of developing or presence of problem gambling. However, Dussault et al., (2019) examined current poker playing adolescents to identify groups according to sociodemographic and gambling-related characteristics [33]. Findings from that study indicated that adolescents who gamble were more likely to respond to interventions designed to address ‘adult’ gambling problems as both groups of gamblers shared sociodemographic and gambling-related characteristics. Interestingly, Dussault et al. (2019), also found that adolescents who played simulated poker did not exhibit or were not at risk of developing problem gambling.

Primary prevention programs were focused on raising awareness of the potential harm of gambling, mostly to young people. There was a lack of evidence of effective education programs at a whole of community level.

Secondary prevention

In general, evidence around secondary prevention programs targeted individuals already experiencing gambling-related harm and tended to refer to ‘responsible gambling’ strategies [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Ladouceur et al., (2017) conducted a systematic review to identify empirically grounded responsible gambling studies to inform evidence-based, effective responsible gambling programs. Little empirical evidence was available from the 105 included citations in the Ladouceur review on which to develop intervention frameworks, and no data beyond 12 months was provided [50,51,52]. However, five responsible gambling strategies and the relative effectiveness of each were discussed, and outlined as follows [53]. Self-exclusion, where individuals participate in a program to be banned from specific gambling venues [54], was poorly adopted but more successful in the longer term if combined with individualised follow-up. Indicators of responsible gambling behaviour, where the individual exercises self-restraint, were difficult to track due to lack of access to universal data. However, gambling frequency, defined as expenditure and duration of gambling, was strongly linked to likelihood of problem gambling. Monetary limit setting — establishing a maximum spend either per bet or for each gambling session — was shown to be more effective than time limiting strategies, with some variability when limit setting is self-determined. Venue training programs were shown to be minimally effective as staff were poor at recognising patrons at-risk of gambling-related harm, with obvious disparities in self-reported Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores and staff estimates. Staff were also unlikely to discuss issues of problem gambling with patrons due to personal discomfort. Secondary prevention was targeted at directly addressing the individual’s behaviour around gambling.

Other studies focused on the impacts of personalised feedback [51,52,55,56] and/or personal contact between counsellors and people who gamble [57,58,59,60,61,62]. Jonas et al., (2020) found that personal contact with counsellors in conjunction with other responsible gambling type interventions had the greatest impact on longterm reduction in problem gambling scores. In terms of impacts of personalised feedback for people who gambled, the most effective interventions were those that provided non-judgemental messaging based on gambling facts and amounts spent [55,63,64,65,66]. The effectiveness of computerised interventions to reduce gambling harm have been examined [67,68,69,70]. Findings indicated that ICT based interventions had widespread potential for harm reduction; however, those interventions that incorporated personalised feedback were the most effective.

Two included studies examined evidence of a public health approach to gambling harm, identifying a relative paucity of empirical evidence [71,72]. McMahon et al., (2019) conducted an umbrella review of systematic evidence around prevention and harm reduction and how these varied across sociodemographic groups. Findings indicate the majority of programs were focused on individual harm reduction, and the varying degree of impact that has on outcomes. Evidence on impacts of supply reduction was limited, with the authors identifying the urgent need for adequately focused research on harm reduction in relation to gambling. Peterson et al., (2021) also identified the paucity of empirical data around effective gambling harm reduction, examined other harm reduction fields like blood borne viruses (BBV) and smoking and outlined protective behaviour strategies (PBS) that could effectively translate to gambling harm [71]. Peterson, et al., (2021) argue that PBS effectively reduced negative consequences associated with gambling behaviours but outlined the pressing need for gambling specific evidence.

Tertiary prevention

Research on psychological interventions designed to address pathological or problem gambling is abundant. A Cochrane Review published in 2012 detailed successful therapies [73]. While outside this review timeframe, a wealth of psychologically focused research has been published since 2012, with an ongoing interest in the individual and problem gambling [29,30,31,56,74,75,76]. Research tended to explore aspects of the individual that either predisposed them to problem gambling or identified various behavioural aspects that could be measured, targeted, and adjusted such that problem gambling was avoided or reduced. Problem gambling in this context is behaviour characterised by difficulties in limiting money and/or time spent on gambling which leads to adverse consequences for the gambler, others, or for the community [77]. Dowling et al. (2021) discussed the benefits of examining the relationship between positive outcomes expectancies (the expectation that one stands to gain from gambling) and gambling behaviour finding no reciprocal relationship between expectancies and gambling behaviour. A possible moderating effect of positive emotional states and the importance of social supports as a moderator of monetary expectancies was demonstrated [76].

There was limited longitudinal data beyond 12 months to assess effectiveness of interventions on lasting behaviour change. Only one included study [78] provided follow up data after eight years in relation to differences between voluntary excluded gamblers compared to forced excluded gamblers with all excluded gamblers either stopping all gambling (20.5%) or reducing their gambling (66.5%) at eight years. However, this was not consistent across all gambling venue types with no difference in gambling behaviours seen in those who gambled in gambling halls (an area within a premise where games of chance are organised and conducted [79]).

In keeping with the recent shift in the gambling discourse away from problem gambling and pathologisation of individuals who gamble, Blank et al., (2021) conducted a systematic mapping review to capture evidence from interventions designed to reduce gambling-related harm [80]. Included reviews were divided into those reporting universal/primary prevention interventions and those evaluating interventions for individuals at high-risk of harm. There was support for primary prevention through supply reduction that included screen pop-up messaging, despite a general lack of empirical evidence in the literature. Therapeutic interventions were shown to be effective in the short-term with minimal to no long-term data. Blank et al. (2021), pointed out the limitations of programs referring to problem gambling or problem gamblers in addressing gambling-related harm at a societal or population level. They argued that focusing on ‘problem-gamblers’ fails to address underlying causes of harmful behaviours and the influence of gambling policy and supply. They argued for the pressing need for evidence to support specific types of interventions for gambling-related harm reduction.

While programs designed to address problem gambling exist at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of prevention, they are focused on individual behaviour and in specific cohorts.

Q2. What evidence is there of impact of gambling-related harm prevention programs on priority population groups?

Priority population groups are those groups that face inequitable burden of high risk activity (gambling-related harm) when compared to the general population, such as Indigenous peoples, older people, and people who live outside the metropolitan area [81]. We based our selection of priority groups on current national, non-gambling specific, priority groups as outlined by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW) [81]. There is limited evidence on the impact of gambling-related harm prevention programs on priority population groups, with only evidence related to Indigenous peoples, older people, young people, LGBTIQA + and migrants captured in this review.

Indigenous peoples

Two articles referred to harm reduction programs specific to Indigenous peoples [82,83]. Whiteside et al., (2020) conducted a systematic review of interventions in Indigenous gambling identifying four articles, only one of which provided (indeterminant) outcomes data. This is supported by Saunders et al., (2021) who also identified a dearth of empirical evidence to inform the design of policy and interventions for Indigenous populations.

Older People

Evidence related to programs specifically designed for older people (recorded as aged 65 years and older) was limited in the literature, but still instructive [84,85,86]. Skinner et al., (2018) operationalise existing best-practice frameworks [85] to produce guidelines for use by practitioners, patients, families, policy makers, and concerned others. These guidelines focus on five key areas including person-centred and family-focused care, screening and assessment, secondary prevention and early intervention, tertiary prevention and specialised treatment, and ongoing support and recovery services.

Young people

Research on programs designed to address gambling-related harm in young people were predominantly focused on primary prevention / early intervention and were schools-based programs, as described earlier. McArthur et al., (2018) conducted a systematic review of interventions designed for primary and secondary prevention for individuals up to 18 years across multiple risky behaviours, including gambling that were conducted at the individual, family or school level [87]. Forty percent of included studies were conducted in school settings with findings indicating that schools-based programs were the most effective for addressing key risky behaviours with no clear suggestion as to why these programs were more effective. Evidence was minimal as to the effectiveness of interventions targeting families when compared to the effectiveness of broader focused programs [88,89].

Migrants

While the experience of migration may impact people’s gambling behaviour, we acknowledge that other aspects of cultural identity beyond migration may also be a factor. In this context, migrants are understood to be first-generation migrants who have recently arrived in the country in which the study took place [90]. Drawing from Wardle et al., (2015), we acknowledge the distinction between migrant status and ethnicity, and the obvious overlap between ethnicity and ethnic cultures. There was a general paucity of evidence specific to migrants; however, one included study provided primary data related to a dedicated public health intervention specifically targeting problem gambling across an entire city [91]. Elbers et al., (2020) examined the impact of a collaborative approach across statutory and volunteer services to reduce problem gambling in one UK city. Within that study, migrant groups were identified as being of particular interest due to the presence of the ‘harm paradox’ [92]. Drawing from work in alcohol and other drugs, Wardle et al. (2019) explain that the harm paradox is seen in certain population groups with particular characteristics (lower socioeconomic position, for example) where those population groups are less likely to gamble but if they do gamble, they are more likely to experience harm.

Q3. What is known about the risk and protective factors for gambling-related harm, particularly in priority population groups?

Overview

We use the definition of risk and protective factors in line with Billi et al., (2014) where “risk factors are attributes associated with the development of gambling problems, and protective factors are attributes that provide resilience or protection from the development of gambling problems”. The evidence related to risk and protective factors for gambling-related harm largely spoke to risk factors.

Risk and protective factors for gambling-related harm are similar to other public health issues like alcohol, tobacco, physical activity, obesity, and blood borne viruses. Evidence outlines strong associations between sociodemographic characteristics and increasing gambling severity and levels of gambling-related harm [94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]. Specific sociodemographic factors were identified across numerous studies and include a mix of risk and protective factors such as increased educational attainment [106,107,108,109,110,111], relative deprivation [112,113,114], parental engagement and role modelling [115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124], peer group behaviour [125], and location of residence relative to numbers of gambling venues [126,127]. Coincidental substance use and/or abuse was also identified as a strong risk factor for gambling, both in terms of frequency and severity (amount of money lost per event) [128,129,130,131,132,133,134], along with increased diversity of gambling product use and frequency [135,136,137,138,139]. The normalisation of gambling and/or sports betting was also explicitly described as a risk factor in gambling activities in pre-teens. Nyemcsok et al. (2021) argued that increased awareness of marketing influence around sports betting was a key factor in predicting reduced gambling activities of young people. Roderique-Davies et al., (2020) also argued that exposure to gambling advertising in the absence of awareness of marketing influence, is a strong risk factor for gambling urge.

Activities like gaming (the use of video games), and particularly purchasing loot boxes (purchasable video game content with randomised rewards) in computer games, has recently been identified as a significant risk factor for developing problematic gambling [142]. These are sometimes described as “gateway activities”. Drummond et al., (2020) found in their international survey that individuals who regularly purchased loot boxes while gaming exhibited symptoms of problem gambling and changes in mood.

The psychological literature provides a wealth of information about various individual characteristics that may be associated with developing problematic gambling [75,76,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156], and how these may be experienced across various life stages and related to other risky behaviours [98,157,158,159,160,161,162,163]. The interaction of comorbid mental health issues has been clearly associated with gambling-related harm [164,165], with a strong relationship between depression, anxiety and at-risk or problem gambling. Again, while much of this research demonstrates correlation, it is impossible to definitively outline causation given the socially constructed and complex nature of gambling and gambling-related harm [166]. The interaction between traumatic brain injury (TBI) and problem gambling (PG) was also examined in two separate studies by Turner et al., (2020 & 2019), finding a link between TBI and PG but no evidence of a causal relationship [167,168].

While much of the included literature described risk factors, Dowling et al., (2021) examined the protective nature of positive mental health characteristics like general coping, emotional support, spirituality, interpersonal skills and global affect. They found that emotional support in conjunction with a strong sense of self were protective against developing problem gambling [75]. Rash and McGrath (2017), who also examined potential protective factors for young adult, non-gamblers, identified religiosity and non-alcohol consumption as potential protective factors for gambling abstinence [169].

There is increasing evidence about the relationship between media campaigns and intentions to gamble across various demographic groups [170,171]. Bouguettaya et al., (2020) conducted a meta-review to establish the relationship between gambling advertising and gambling-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviours. Findings from the 24 included studies demonstrated a strong positive relationship between exposure to gambling-related advertising and intentions to gamble. Once again, the lack of longitudinal behavioural data was cited as a limitation to the strength of the finding and a key future research area.

Priority populations

Like evidence that refers to targeted interventions, this review captured limited empirical evidence of risk and protective factors for priority populations within the identified search period. Available evidence was specific to Indigenous peoples [172,173], older people, migrants, women [173], and the LGBTIQA + community.

Indigenous peoples

Williams et al., (2022), in an examination of Canadian population-wide health data, identified several predictive indicators of Indigenous problem gambling. Specifically, use of electronic gambling machines (EGMs), the presence of gambling fallacy beliefs, having a mental or substance use disorder, sports betting and being male were likely to contribute to problem gambling in Canadian Indigenous peoples. Sharman et al., (2019) conducted a systematic review of psychosocial risk factors in disordered gambling across identified vulnerable groups, where disordered gambling is an umbrella term for gambling related harm. For Indigenous peoples, a history of discrimination and dispossession are thought to increase vulnerability to gambling disorder. Specifically, however, gender (being male), childhood exposure to gambling, having friends and/or family who gamble and being socially marginalised were identified as risk factors in conjunction with Indigenous status. Like Williams et al., use of specific gambling products increased vulnerability to disordered gambling and increased frequency of gambling, and fallacious beliefs were also identified as risk factors [174]. MacLean et al., (2019) investigated the social practice of gambling for two Australian Indigenous communities, finding similar antecedents to gambling as Williams et al. [172] and Sharman et al. [173] However, the socially embedded nature of gambling was identified as a key limiting factor in the relative impact of any harm reduction program. This is supported by Gupta et al., (2021) in their study of the impacts of gambling on the person who gambles as well as non-gamblers because of the socially embedded nature of gambling for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

Older people

Two studies explicitly discussed risk factors for gambling-related harm in older people [99,100]. Heiskanen and Matilainen (2020) argue that significant historical changes to the nature of gambling from being for ‘a good cause’, like church raffles, to the current context of commercial gambling must be considered when viewing gambling-related harm in older people. Moreover, the deterministic understanding of gambling problems as a personal flaw can prevent recognition of problem gambling and subsequent help seeking. These risk factors are considered stronger indicators of problem gambling than gender and educational attainment. Elton-Marshall et al. (2018) investigated the impacts of loneliness and social isolation among older people, suggesting that older people who socialise and who were married were far less likely to have high Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores than older people who were divorced or single with limited social networks.

Migrants

Wardle et al., (2019) provided a rapid review of literature related to gambling-related harm affecting migrants and migrant communities, outlining various motivators to gamble. In particular, acculturation and acculturative stress, the impact of advertising and level of access to gambling in the new country were identified as risks for increasing gambling-related harm [177]. Protective factors were identified as levels of disapproval of gambling among migrants, and religious and moral tenets. However, this may be outweighed by acculturative stress, availability of gambling and the impact of the immediate social environment [92]. Importantly, Wardle and colleagues were careful to point out the ‘harm paradox’ experienced by migrants. This is supported by Bramley et al., (2020) in their investigation of barriers and enablers to support services from the perspective of migrants and the organisations supporting them [178]. According to Bramley and colleagues, migrants were at greater risk of gambling-related harm due to a lack of a social safety net in the form of family and friends in their new country. The inability to access informal support and the impact of gambling loss may have broader ramifications than they do for local gamblers [179]. Moreover, the tendency for migrants to work in a cash economy may enable individuals to binge gamble, potentially driving the self-perpetuating ‘chase mode’ that can be exacerbated via limited ability to secure money within formal banking systems.

Women

There has been little research on women and gambling [180,181]; however, there is increasing evidence of the lived experience of gambling-related harm among women [182]. Sharman et al., (2019) in their systematic review of psychosocial risk factors referred to women as a discrete group, identifying availability and access as well as the social nature of gambling as risk factors for disordered gambling. Women seeking treatment were also more likely than women not seeking treatment to present with co-morbid psychological conditions like anxiety, depression and mood disorder, and substance-use disorder. Experiencing trauma and abuse, living in a violent relationship, having low self-esteem and poor coping skills were all shown to be of high prevalence. Aggression in female adolescents was hypothesised to be indicative of future risky gambling [173].

LGBTQIA + community

Only one study referred to risk factors evident in the LGBTQIA + community, specifically trans and gender diverse (TGD) teenagers [183]. Rider et al., (2019) conducted a prevalence study of TGD youth in comparison to cis gender adolescents finding that assigned male sex at birth, regardless of gender transition, was a positive risk factor for developing problem gambling behaviours.

Discussion

This rapid synthesis evidence review included 166 peer reviewed studies about programs designed to address gambling-related harm. Most of the included studies referred to individual risk and protective factors, like socioeconomic position, age, and ethnicity, of people who gamble and explored how those factors may have contributed to overall gambling outcomes. Although there is an emerging body of evidence dedicated to public health approaches to gambling-related harm, there is a clear gap in empirical research findings around effective interventions to reduce gambling-related harm, particularly from a public health perspective.

Public health approaches to high-risk behaviours examine the social and environmental elements around the individual that may contribute to the likelihood of experiencing harm [184]. Examining gambling-related harm as a social concept is relatively new in comparison to focusing on the individual in isolation from their social context [80]. Much of the evidence included in this review focused on programs designed to address ‘problem gambling’ while identifying predisposing social and individual factors. Public health approaches to harm reduction centralise the individual within their social context while actively examining the various social determinants influencing that individual [6]. Very few of the included programs that focused on the individual demonstrated efficacy in the absence of support structures put in place around the individual. Predominantly, the included evidence outlined behaviour change mechanisms without support for the individual in their social context. This is a clear omission as the success of public health approaches to other high-risk activities like alcohol and other drugs are well documented [184].

Gambling-related harm is inherently determined by social context and industry/commercial influence on individual behaviour and choices [185]. By taking a public health approach, programs depart from an addiction focus to appreciate the far broader group of people experiencing gambling-related harm but who do not reach thresholds for addiction [186]. Most importantly, harm reduction also includes the numerous ‘affected others’ who bear the secondary impact of gambling-related harm 4.

Evidence supporting a public health approach for gambling-related harm is still developing but increasing. Findings from this rapid review described programs designed to respond to individuals whose behaviour is described as problem gambling (tertiary prevention), with variable effect on gambling behaviours and the individual’s experience of harm and no overt broader harm reduction approaches. Harm reduction programs generally seek to achieve primary or secondary prevention. Removing supply (primary prevention) is less likely in the context of a community that has liberalised gambling; however, targeted programs for harm reduction (secondary prevention) are far more likely to reduce overall harm experienced at an individual, community or population level. Wardle et al., (2019) argue that any interventions designed to address gambling-related harm must incorporate key understandings of the commercial, policy and regulatory environment that contribute to gambling exposure and subsequent harm. Gambling harms are related to increasing social disadvantage, with those who are less able to afford the monetary loss experiencing greater harm. Given the complex interplay between supply, social factors and individual behaviour, a public health approach may offer a more effective mechanism to reduce gambling-related harm. To optimise harm reduction outcomes in a liberalised gambling environment, public health programs should be implemented on a larger scale.

Conclusion

From this rapid literature review, two distinct discourses around gambling-related harm and effective interventions were apparent. First, a discourse around harm reduction and ‘responsible gambling’ that focuses on the ‘problem gambler’ as an individual, without recognising the broader context of commercial and social factors and harms. This discourse is seen most strongly in the tertiary prevention literature. Second, the smaller, yet emerging, discourse dedicated to preventing and reducing gambling-related harm that acknowledges the socially and commercially constructed nature of gambling and associated harms. This discourse was more likely to be to present in the primary and secondary prevention literature.

There was a clear paucity of empirical evidence related to effectiveness of programs that address gambling-related harm, particularly those that target primary or secondary prevention. By adopting a public health approach when addressing a complex issue like gambling-related harm, efforts to reduce harm are optimised are only possible in the context of sound evidence. Similar harm reduction areas like alcohol and other drugs equally rely on sound evidence to produce the positive outcomes evident in that field.

Availability of data and materials

No data were created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

References

  1. Queensland Government Statistician's Office QT. Australian Gambling Statistics, 38th edition, 1995–96 to 2020–21. 2023.

  2. Queensland Government Statistician's Office QT. Australian gambling statistics, Summary tables, 36th edition. 2021.

  3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Gambling in Australia. AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 07 November 20222021.

  4. Langham E, Thorne H, Browne M, et al. Understanding gambling related harm: a proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2747-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Livingstone C, Rintoul A. Moving on from responsible gambling: a new discourse is needed to prevent and minimise harm from gambling. Public Health. 2020;184:107–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Korn DA, Shaffer HJ. Gambling and the health of the public: adopting a public health perspective. J Gambl Stud. 1999;15:289–365. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023005115932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blaszczynski A. Harm minimization strategies in gambling: An overview of international initiatives & interventions. Melbourne: Australian Gambling Council; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Ontario, Canada.

  9. Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF). Using a public health approach in the prevention of gambling-related harm. Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Melbourne, Victoria, 2015.

  10. Victorian Government. Gambling regulation Act No. 114 of 2003. 2003.

  11. NSW Government. Betting Tax Act 2001 No 43. 2001.

  12. Victorian Government. Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Act 2011. 2011.

  13. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, et al. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol. 1997;21:3–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dixit SK, Sambasivan M. A review of the Australian healthcare system: a policy perspective. SAGE Open Med. 2018;6:2050312118769211. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118769211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). 2013.

  19. Covidence Systematic Review Software. Veritas Health Innovation: Melbourne

  20. Zhou XL, Goernert PN, Corenblum B. Examining the efficacy of the GameSense gambling prevention programme among university undergraduate students. Int Gambl Stud. 2019;19:282–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ren J, Moberg K, Scuffham H, et al. Long-term effectiveness of a gambling intervention program among children in central Illinois. PLoS ONE [Electron Resource]. 2019;14: e0212087.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Keen B, Blaszczynski A, Anjoul F. Systematic review of empirically evaluated school-based gambling education programs. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:301–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9641-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grande-Gosende A, López-Núñez C, García-Fernández G, et al. Systematic review of preventive programs for reducing problem gambling behaviors among young adults. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09866-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Huic A, Kranzelic V, Hundric DD, et al. Who really wins? Efficacy of a Croatian youth gambling prevention program. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:1011–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oh BC, Ong YJ, Loo JM. A review of educational-based gambling prevention programs for adolescents. Asian J Gambl Issues Public Health. 2017;7:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40405-017-0024-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Parham BR, Robertson C, Lever N, et al. “Enhancing the relevance and effectiveness of a youth gambling prevention program for urban, minority youth: a pilot study of Maryland smart choices”: Correction. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:1269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dodig Hundric D, Mandic S, Ricijas N. Short-term effectiveness of the youth gambling prevention program “who really wins?”-results from the first national implementation. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2021;18:26.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Botella-Guijarro A, Lloret-Irles D, Segura-Heras JV, et al. A longitudinal analysis of gambling predictors among adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2020;17:11.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chóliz M, Marcos M, Bueno F. Ludens: a gambling addiction prevention program based on the principles of ethical gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2022;38:993–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10066-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Donati MA, Chiesi F, Iozzi A, et al. Gambling-related distortions and problem gambling in adolescents: a model to explain mechanisms and develop interventions. Front Psychol. 2018; 8.

  31. Calado F, Alexandre J, Rosenfeld L, et al. The efficacy of a gambling prevention program among high-school students. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:573–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. St-Pierre RA, Derevensky JL, Temcheff CE, et al. Evaluation of a school-based gambling prevention program for adolescents: efficacy of using the theory of planned behaviour. J Gambl Issues. 2017;36:113–37.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dussault F, Dufour M, Brunelle N, et al. Who are the young poker players? A latent class analysis of high school teenagers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2020;34:392–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Grande Gosende A, Martinez Loredo V, Fernandez Hermida JR. Gambling motives questionnaire validation in adolescents: differences based on gambling severity and activities. Adicciones. 2019;31:212–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Saxton J, Rodda SN, Booth N, et al. The efficacy of Personalized Normative Feedback interventions across addictions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2021;16: e0248262.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Donati MA, Boncompagni J, Iraci Sareri G, et al. Optimizing large-scale gambling prevention with adolescents through the development and evaluation of a training course for health professionals: The case of PRIZE. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2022;17: e0266825.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Perkins DN. Outsmarting IQ: the emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: Free Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tong KK, Hung EPW, Lei CMW, et al. Public awareness and practice of responsible gambling in Macao. J Gambl Stud. 2018;34:1261–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Turner NE, Robinson J, Harrigan K, et al. A pilot evaluation of a tutorial to teach clients and clinicians about gambling game design. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2018;16:136–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van der Maas M, Shi J, Elton-Marshall T, et al. Internet-based interventions for problem gambling: scoping review. JMIR Mental Health. 2019;6: e65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gainsbury SM, Abarbanel BLL, Philander KS, et al. Strategies to customize responsible gambling messages: a review and focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:1381.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Stanmyre JF, Mills DJ, Anthony WL, et al. Mindfulness profiles among gamblers: exploring differences in gambling behaviors, motivations, cognitions, and mental health. Mindfulness. 2022;13:339–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hing N, Sproston K, Tran K, et al. Gambling responsibly: who does it and to what end? J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:149–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Harris A, Griffiths MD. A critical review of the harm-minimisation tools available for electronic gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:187–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rafi J, Ivanova E, Rozental A, et al. Participants’ experiences of a workplace-oriented problem gambling prevention program for managers and HR officers: a qualitative study. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1494.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Drawson AS, Tanner J, Mushquash CJ, et al. The use of protective behavioural strategies in gambling: a systematic review. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2017;15:1302–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Currie SR, Brunelle N, Dufour M, et al. Use of self-control strategies for managing gambling habits leads to less harm in regular gamblers. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:685–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Beckett M, Keen B, Swanton TB, et al. Staff perceptions of responsible gambling training programs: qualitative findings. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:405–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Abbott MW. Self-directed interventions for gambling disorder. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2019;32:307–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Auer M, Hopfgartner N, Griffiths MD. The effect of loss-limit reminders on gambling behavior: a real-world study of Norwegian gamblers. J Behav Addict. 2018;7:1056–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Caillon J, Grall-Bronnec M, Saillard A, et al. Impact of warning pop-up messages on the gambling behavior, craving, and cognitions of online gamblers: a randomized controlled trial. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12: 711431.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Ladouceur R, Shaffer P, Blaszczynski A, et al. Responsible gambling: a synthesis of the empirical evidence. Addict Res Theory. 2017;25:225–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2016.1245294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Liquor and Gaming NSW. Gaming self-exclusion, https://www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/working-in-the-industry/licensees-and-approved-managers/gaming-self-exclusion (2024).

  55. Jonsson J, Hodgins DC, Munck I, et al. Reaching out to big losers leads to sustained reductions in gambling over 1 year: a randomized controlled trial of brief motivational contact. Addiction. 2020;115:1522–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Armstrong T, Rockloff M, Browne M, et al. Training gamblers to re-think their gambling choices: how contextual analytical thinking may be useful in promoting safer gambling. J Behav Addict. 2020;9:766–84. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00049.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Jonas B, Leuschner F, Eiling A, et al. Web-based intervention and email-counseling for problem gamblers: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:1341–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Michalska P, Chatton A, Penzenstadler L, et al. Perspective of internet poker players on harm-reduction strategies: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2020;17:04.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ranta J, Bellringer M, Garrett N, et al. Can a brief telephone intervention for problem gambling help to reduce co-existing depression? A three-year prospective study in New Zealand. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:617–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rodda SN, Bagot KL, Manning V, et al. An exploratory RCT to support gamblers’ intentions to stick to monetary limits: a brief intervention using action and coping planning. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:387–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Peter SC, Brett EI, Suda MT, et al. A meta-analysis of brief personalized feedback interventions for problematic gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:447–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rodda SN, Bagot KL, Cheetham A, et al. Types of change strategies for limiting or reducing gambling behaviors and their perceived helpfulness: a factor analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2018;32:679–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Merkouris SS, Hawker CO, Rodda SN, et al. GamblingLess: Curb Your Urge: development and usability testing of a smartphone-delivered ecological momentary intervention for problem gambling. Int Gambl Stud. 2020;20:515–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hing N, Browne M, Russell AMT, et al. Avoiding gambling harm: an evidence-based set of safe gambling practices for consumers. PLoS ONE. 2019;14: e0224083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224083.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Morvannou A, Monson E, Savard A-C, et al. “It did not apply to me”: poker players’ perspectives of prevention messages. Can J Public Health Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique. 2020;111:617–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rodda SN. A scoping review of hard systems and tools that restrict money and cash for gambling. J Behav Addict. 2021;10:587–600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Paterson M, Whitty M, Boyer C. An overview of digital and online strategies to reduce gambling harm. Health Promot J Austr. 2021;32:248–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rodda SN. A systematic review of internet delivered interventions for gambling: prevention, harm reduction and early intervention. J Gambl Stud. 2021;13:13.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Newall PWS, Weiss-Cohen L, Singmann H, et al. Impact of the “when the fun stops, stop” gambling message on online gambling behaviour: a randomised, online experimental study. Lancet Public Health. 2022;7:e437–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sirola A, Savela N, Savolainen I, et al. The role of virtual communities in gambling and gaming behaviors: a systematic review. J Gambl Stud. 2021;37:165–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Peterson R, Kramer MP, Pinto D, et al. A comprehensive review of measures of protective behavioral strategies across various risk factors and associated PBS-related interventions. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021;29:236–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. McMahon N, Thomson K, Kaner E, et al. Effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours and gambling related harm: an umbrella review. Addict Behav. 2019;90:380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Cowlishaw S, Merkouris SS, Dowling NA, et al. Psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008937.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. de Ridder B, Deighton RM. The effect of shame and self-efficacy on gambling behaviour. J Gambl Stud. 2022;38:1059–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10059-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Dowling NA, Aarsman SR, Merkouris SS. Risk, compensatory, and protective factors in problem gambling: the role of positive mental health characteristics. Addict Behav. 2021;112: 106604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Dowling NA, Merkouris SS, Spence K. Ecological momentary assessment of the relationship between positive outcome expectancies and gambling behaviour. J Clin Med. 2021;10:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Neale P, Delfabbro P, O’Neil M. Problem gambling and harm: towards a national definition. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kotter R, Kraplin A, Buhringer G. Casino self- and forced excluders’ gambling behavior before and after exclusion. J Gambl Stud. 2018;34:597–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Law Insider Inc. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gambling-hall (2024).

  80. Blank L, Baxter S, Woods HB, et al. Interventions to reduce the public health burden of gambling-related harms: a mapping review. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6:e50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30230-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. AIHW. Population groups. 2023.

  82. Whiteside M, Heyeres M, Maltzahn K, et al. Intervening in indigenous gambling: a systematic review of the literature. SAGE Open. 2020;10:2158244020947441. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020947441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Saunders P, Doyle K. Gambling interventions in indigenous communities, from theory to practice: a rapid qualitative review of the literature. J Gambl Stud. 2021;37:947–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10019-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Skinner W, Littman-Sharp N, Leslie J, et al. Best practices for the treatment of older adult problem gamblers. J Gambl Issues. 2018;39:166–203.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Turner NE, Wiebe J, Ferentzy P, et al. Developing a best practices guide for the prevention of problem gambling among older adults. J Gambl Issues. 2018;39:112–65.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Pitt H, Thomas SL, Cowlishaw S, et al. “I always walked out with an empty purse” Older adults’ engagement with electronic gambling machines in Victoria, Australia. Health Promot J Aust. 2022;33:533–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. MacArthur GJ, Caldwell DM, Redmore J, et al. Individual-, family-, and school-level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009927.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Zhai ZW, Hoff RA, Howell JC, et al. Lottery-purchasing adolescents: gambling perceptions, problems, and characteristics. J Gambl Stud. 2021;37:1177–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Zhai ZW, Yip SW, Steinberg MA, et al. Relationships between perceived family gambling and peer gambling and adolescent problem gambling and binge-drinking. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:1169–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Wardle H. Exploring area-based vulnerability to gambling-related harm: Who is vulnerable: Findings from a quick scoping review. London: Gambling & Place Research Hub, Geofutures; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Elbers M, Rowlands J, Boo M, et al. Building momentum for local action on problem gambling in Leeds and Yorkshire. Public Health. 2020;184:67–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Wardle H, Bramley S, Norrie C, et al. What do we know about gambling-related harm affecting migrants and migrant communities? A rapid review. Addict Behav. 2019;93:180–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Billi R, Stone CA, Marden P, et al. The Victorian Gambling Study: A longitudinal study of gambling and health in Victoria, 2008–2012. Victoria: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Farhat LC, Foster DW, Wampler J, et al. Casino gambling in adolescents: gambling-related attitudes and behaviors and health and functioning relationships. J Gambl Stud. 2021;03:03.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Gonzalez-Roz A, Fernandez-Hermida JR, Weidberg S, et al. Prevalence of problem gambling among adolescents: a comparison across modes of access, gambling activities, and levels of severity. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:371–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Latvala T, Castren S, Alho H, et al. Compulsory school achievement and gambling among men and women aged 18–29 in Finland. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46:505–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Latvala TA, Lintonen TP, Browne M, et al. Social disadvantage and gambling severity: a population-based study with register-linkage. Eur J Pub Health. 2021;31:1217–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Jun H-J, Sacco P, Cunningham-Williams RM. Gambling in emerging adulthood: the role of adolescent depressive symptoms, antisocial behaviors, and alcohol use. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2021;19:494–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Elton-Marshall T, Wijesingha R, Sendzik T, et al. Marital status and problem gambling among older adults: an examination of social context and social motivations. Can J Aging. 2018;37:318–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Heiskanen MK, Matilainen R. Baby boomers as gamblers: recognizing and preventing gambling harm with intersectional approach. Public Health. 2020;184:5–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Raybould JN, Larkin M, Tunney RJ. Is there a health inequality in gambling related harms? A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10337-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Frisone F, Settineri S, Sicari PF, et al. Gambling in adolescence: a narrative review of the last 20 years. J Addict Dis. 2020;38:438–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Knaebe B, Rodda SN, Hodgins DC, et al. Behaviour change strategies endorsed by gamblers subtyped by psychological distress, risky alcohol use, and impulsivity. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:275–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Jacob L, Lopez-Sanchez GF, Oh H, et al. Association between problem gambling and functional disability: a nationally representative study conducted in the united kingdom. J Addict Med. 2022;16:235–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Pitt H, Thomas SL, Watson J, et al. How do people with intellectual disability engage with and understand gambling? a qualitative study of adults in victoria, australia. Front Public Health. 2020;8: 536520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Williams RJ, Leonard CA, Belanger YD, et al. Predictors of gambling and problem gambling in Canada. Can J Public Health Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique. 2021;112:521–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Salonen AH, Kontto J, Perhoniemi R, et al. Gambling expenditure by game type among weekly gamblers in Finland. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:697.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Mihic J, Skinner M, Novak M, et al. The importance of family and school protective factors in preventing the risk behaviors of youth. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2022;19:31.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Kang K, Ha YK, Bang HL. Gambling subgroups among korean out-of-school adolescents. Child Health Nurs Res. 2020;26:385–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Noel JK, Rosenthal SR, Sammartino CJ. Correlates of gambling and gambling problems among Rhode Island young adults: a cross-sectional study. J Public Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdac023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Russell AMT, Hing N, Browne M. Risk factors for gambling problems specifically associated with sports betting. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:1211–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Tabri N, Will Shead N, Wohl MJA. Me, myself, and money II: Relative deprivation predicts disordered gambling severity via delay discounting, especially among gamblers who have a financially focused self-concept. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:1201–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Neophytou K, Theodorou M, Theodorou C, et al. Population screening of gambling behavior: playing to escape from problems may be a key characteristic of at-risk players. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12: 690210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Wieczorek L, Stokwiszewski J, Klingemann JI. Screening of problem gambling among a homeless population in Warsaw. Nordisk Alkohol Narkotikatidskrift. 2019;36:542–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Macia L, Estevez A, Jauregui P. Gambling: exploring the role of gambling motives, attachment and addictive behaviours among adolescents and young women. J Gambl Stud. 2022;17:17.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Gomez P, Feijoo S, Brana T, et al. Minors and online gambling: prevalence and related variables. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:735–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Jauregui P, Estevez A. Predictive role of attachment, coping, and emotion regulation in gambling motives of adolescents and young people. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:1283–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Zhao Y, Marchica L, Derevensky JL, et al. Mobile gambling among youth: a warning sign for problem gambling? J Gambl Issues. 2018;38:268–82.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Dowling NA, Shandley KA, Oldenhof E, et al. The intergenerational transmission of at-risk/problem gambling: the moderating role of parenting practices. Am J Addict. 2017;26:707–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Subramaniam M, Chong SA, Satghare P, et al. Gambling and family: a two-way relationship. J Behav Addict. 2017;6:689–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Marinaci T, Venuleo C, Ferrante L, et al. What game we are playing: the psychosocial context of problem gambling, problem gaming and poor well-being among Italian high school students. Heliyon. 2021;7: e07872.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Mazar A, Williams RJ, Stanek EJ, et al. The importance of friends and family to recreational gambling, at-risk gambling, and problem gambling. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:1080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Pisarska A, Ostaszewski K. Factors associated with youth gambling: longitudinal study among high school students. Public Health. 2020;184:33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.03.017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Bonnaire C, Phan O. Relationships between parental attitudes, family functioning and internet gaming disorder in adolescents attending school. Psychiatry Res. 2017;255:104–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Savolainen I, Sirola A, Kaakinen M, et al. Peer group identification as determinant of youth behavior and the role of perceived social support in problem gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:15–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Kang K, Ok JS, Kim H, et al. The gambling factors related with the level of adolescent problem gambler. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2019;16:14.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Carra G, Crocamo C, Bebbington P. Gambling, geographical variations and deprivation: findings from the adult psychiatric morbidity survey. Int Gambl Stud. 2017;17:459–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Huggett SB, Winiger EA, Corley RP, et al. Alcohol use, psychiatric disorders and gambling behaviors: a multi-sample study testing causal relationships via the co-twin control design. Addict Behav. 2019;93:173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.01.024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Granato H, Luk JW, Paves A, et al. Crossover effects of protective behavioural strategies for drinking on gambling consequences among college gamblers with alcohol or drug abuse. J Gambl Issues. 2018;38:190–202.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Jun H-J, Sacco P, Bright C, et al. Gender differences in the relationship between depression, antisocial behavior, alcohol use, and gambling during emerging adulthood. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2019;17:1328–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Cronce JM, Bittinger JN, Di Lodovico CM, et al. Independent versus co-occurring substance use in relation to gambling outcomes in older adolescents and young adults. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60:528–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Forsstrom D, Rozental A, Sundqvist K. Alcohol use and gambling associated with impulsivity among a swedish university sample. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2022;19:20.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Martinez-Loredo V, Grande-Gosende A, Fernandez-Artamendi S, et al. Substance use and gambling patterns among adolescents: Differences according to gender and impulsivity. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:63–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Werner KB, Cunningham-Williams RM, Ahuja M, et al. Patterns of gambling and substance use initiation in African American and White adolescents and young adults. Psychol Addict Behav. 2020;34:382–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Wall H, Berman AH, Jayaram-Lindstrom N, et al. Gambler clusters and problem gambling severity: a cluster analysis of Swedish gamblers accessing an online problem gambling screener. Psychol Addict Behav. 2021;35:102–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Mazar A, Zorn M, Becker N, et al. Gambling formats, involvement, and problem gambling: Which types of gambling are more risky? BMC Public Health. 2020;20:711.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Costes JM, Kairouz S, Monson E, et al. Where lies the harm in lottery gambling? A portrait of gambling practices and associated problems. J Gambl Stud. 2018;34:1293–311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Seal E, Cardak BA, Nicholson M, et al. The gambling behaviour and attitudes to sports betting of sports fans. J Gambl Stud. 2022;01:01.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Flack M, Morris M. Gambling-related beliefs and gambling behaviour: explaining gambling problems with the theory of planned behaviour. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2017;15:130–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Nyemcsok C, Thomas SL, Pitt H, et al. Young people’s reflections on the factors contributing to the normalisation of gambling in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2021;45:165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Roderique-Davies G, Torrance J, Bhairon T, et al. Embedded gambling promotion in football: an explorative study of cue-exposure and urge to gamble. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:1013–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Drummond A, Sauer JD, Ferguson CJ, et al. The relationship between problem gambling, excessive gaming, psychological distress and spending on loot boxes in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and the United States-A cross-national survey. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2020;15:e0230378.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Dowling NA, Francis KL, Dixon R, et al. “It runs in your blood”: Reflections from treatment seeking gamblers on their family history of gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2021;37:689–710.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Schulte L, Orlowski S, Brandt D, et al. The role of migration background and cognitive distortions in the trajectories of gambling problems—a longitudinal study. Int Gambl Stud. 2021;21:17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2020.1791220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Dowling NA, Merkouris SS, Greenwood CJ, et al. Early risk and protective factors for problem gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;51:109–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Mathieu S, Barrault S, Brunault P, et al. Gambling motives: do they explain cognitive distortions in male poker gamblers? J Gambl Stud. 2018;34:133–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Mallorqui-Bague N, Tolosa-Sola I, Fernandez-Aranda F, et al. Cognitive deficits in executive functions and decision-making impairments cluster gambling disorder sub-types. J Gambl Stud. 2018;34:209–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. King SM, Keyes M, Winters KC, et al. Genetic and environmental origins of gambling behaviors from ages 18 to 25: a longitudinal twin family study. Psychol Addict Behav. 2017;31:367–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Jones CM, Noel B. Skin in the game—erroneous beliefs and emotional involvement as correlates of athletes’ sports betting behavior and problems. J Behav Addict. 2021;18:18.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Vegni N, Melchiori FM, D’Ardia C, et al. Gambling behavior and risk factors in preadolescent students: a cross sectional study. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Mader J, Christensen DR, Williams RJ. An evaluation of the pathways model using the Quinte Longitudinal dataset. Int Gambl Stud. 2019;19:417–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Orlowski S, Bischof A, Besser B, et al. Deficits in emotion regulation strategies among problematic and pathological gamblers in a sample of vocational school students. J Behav Addict. 2019;8:94–102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Tomei A, Studer J, Gmel G. Prosocialness in young males with substance and behavioral addictions. J Behav Addict. 2021;10:327–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Engebo J, Torsheim T, Mentzoni RA, et al. Predictors of gamblers beliefs about responsible gambling measures. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:1375–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Langham E, Russell AMT, Hing N, et al. Sense of coherence and gambling: exploring the relationship between sense of coherence, gambling behaviour and gambling-related harm. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:661–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9640-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Zhang MX, Yang HM, Tong KK, et al. The prospective effect of purpose in life on gambling disorder and psychological flourishing among university students. J Behav Addict. 2020;9:756–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Kaltenegger HC, Laftman SB, Wennberg P. Impulsivity, risk gambling, and heavy episodic drinking among adolescents: a moderator analysis of psychological health. Addict Behav Rep. 2019;10: 100211.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. Wang X, Won D, Jeon HS. Predictors of sports gambling among college students: the role of the theory of planned behavior and problem gambling severity. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electron Resour]. 2021;18:12.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Obedzinski K, Edgerton JD, Roberts LW. Problem gambling risk in a sample of Canadian university students: understanding motives and associated “risky” behaviors. Coll Stud J. 2019;53:199–215.

    Google Scholar 

  160. King SM, Saunders GR, Elkins IJ, et al. Where do gambling problems fit in the structure of psychopathology during emerging adulthood? Int Gambl Stud. 2020;20:1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Estevez A, Jauregui P, Momene J, et al. Longitudinal changes in gambling, buying and materialism in adolescents: a population-based study. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electron Resour]. 2021;18:10.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Lostutter TW, Enkema M, Schwebel F, et al. Doing it for the money: the relationship between gambling and money attitudes among college students. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:143–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Buja A, Sperotto M, Genetti B, et al. Adolescent gambling behavior: a gender oriented prevention strategy is required? Ital J Pediatr. 2022;48:113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Levesque D, Sevigny S, Giroux I, et al. Psychological vulnerability and problem gambling: the mediational role of cognitive distortions. J Gambl Stud. 2018;34:807–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Savolainen I, Oksanen A, Kaakinen M, et al. The role of perceived loneliness in youth addictive behaviors: cross-national survey study. JMIR Mental Health. 2020;7: e14035.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Gordon R, Reith G. Gambling as social practice: a complementary approach for reducing harm? Harm Reduct J. 2019;16:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0342-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Turner NE, Cook S, Shi J, et al. Traumatic brain injuries and problem gambling in youth: evidence from a population-based study of secondary students in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2020;15: e0239661.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Turner NE, McDonald AJ, Ialomiteanu AR, et al. Moderate to severe gambling problems and traumatic brain injury: a population-based study. Psychiatry Res. 2019;272:692–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Rash CL, McGrath DS. Self-generated motives for not gambling among young adult non-gamblers. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33:825–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Bouguettaya A, Lynott D, Carter A, et al. The relationship between gambling advertising and gambling attitudes, intentions and behaviours: a critical and meta-analytic review. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2020;31:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Pitt H, Thomas SL, Bestman A, et al. Factors that influence children’s gambling attitudes and consumption intentions: lessons for gambling harm prevention research, policies and advocacy strategies. Harm Reduct J. 2017;14:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  172. Williams RJ, Belanger YD, Leonard CA, et al. Indigenous gambling and problem gambling in Canada. J Gambl Stud (Online). 2022;38:67–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10022-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Sharman S, Butler K, Roberts A. Psychosocial risk factors in disordered gambling: a descriptive systematic overview of vulnerable populations. Addict Behav. 2019;99: 106071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Maltzahn K, Whiteside M, Lee HK, et al. Tackling gambling harm to bingo players at a time of commercial, regulatory and technological change—towards a public health approach. Public Health. 2022;206:70–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. MacLean S, Maltzahn K, Thomas D, et al. Gambling in two regional australian aboriginal communities: a social practice analysis. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:1331–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  176. Gupta H, Stevens M. “It started 30 years ago, and it still haunts me”: an exploratory investigation of Territorians’ gambling behaviours, harm, and help-seeking for gambling issues in an Australian jurisdiction. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10141-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Giralt S, Muller KW, Beutel ME, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and psychosocial adjustment of problematic gambling in adolescents: Results from two representative German samples. J Behav Addict. 2018;7:339–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. Bramley S, Norrie C, Manthorpe J. Exploring the support for UK migrants experiencing gambling-related harm: insights from two focus groups. Public Health. 2020;184:22–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Wejbera M, Wolfling K, Dreier M, et al. Risk factors, physical and mental health burden of male and female pathological gamblers in the German general population aged 40–80. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21:123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  180. McCarthy S, Pitt H, Bellringer ME, et al. Strategies to prevent and reduce gambling harm in Australian women. Drugs Educ Prevent Policy. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2021.1973963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Palmerdu Preez K, Paavonen A-M, Bellringer ME. Theoretically informed gender analysis for gambling harm reduction: a New Zealand study. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18:111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00558-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Holdsworth L, Hing N, Breen H. Exploring women’s problem gambling: a review of the literature. Int Gambl Stud. 2012;12:199–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2012.656317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Rider G, McMorris BJ, Gower AL, et al. Gambling behaviors and problem gambling: a population-based comparison of transgender/gender diverse and cisgender adolescents. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:79–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Hawk M, Coulter RWS, Egan JE, et al. Harm reduction principles for healthcare settings. Harm Reduct J. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-017-0196-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Thomas S, Pitt H, Bestman A, et al. The determinants of gambling normalisation: Causes, consequences and public health responses. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Browne M, Greer N, Rawat V, et al. A population-level metric for gambling-related harm. Int Gambl Stud. 2017;17:163–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2017.1304973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author team acknowledges the assistance of the staff at VRGF in providing direction for potential sources of peer reviewed literature related to the research questions, and their feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Funding

All authors have received funding for gambling research in the last year from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF). The VRGF is funded by hypothecated taxes from gambling.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SC, VW, and DR explored and reviewed the literature, and developed the analysis framework. SC conceptualised and drafted the paper with AD, VL, PO and ER providing critical review of the manuscript drafts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samantha Clune.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

All authors have received funding for gambling research in the last year from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF). The VRGF is funded by hypothecated taxes from gambling.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clune, S., Ratnaike, D., White, V. et al. What is known about population level programs designed to address gambling-related harm: rapid review of the evidence. Harm Reduct J 21, 118 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-01032-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-01032-8

Keywords