ArticleBMJ open2018
Description and assessment of trustability of motives for self-exclusion reported by online poker gamblers in a cohort using account-based gambling data.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term efficacy of an optimized online gambling self-exclusion procedure with extended suspension of commercial solicitations: a randomized controlled trial.Harm reduction journal · 2025Trial
- Article
- Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Efficacy of a Voluntary Self-exclusion Reinstatement Tutorial for Problem Gamblers.Journal of gambling studies · 2021Article
- Responsible product design to mitigate excessive gambling: A scoping review and z-curve analysis of replicability.PloS one · 2021Article
- Self-Exclusion among Online Poker Gamblers: Effects on Expenditure in Time and Money as Compared to Matched Controls.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSelf-exclusion is one of the main responsible gambling tools. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of self-exclusion motives in self-reports to the gambling service provider. SETTINGS: This is a retrospective cohort using prospective account-based gambling data obtained from a poker gambling provider.
participantsOver a period of 7 years we included all poker gamblers self-excluding for the first time, and reporting a motive for their self-exclusion (n=1996). We explored two groups: self-excluders who self-reported a motive related to addiction and those who reported a commercial motive.
resultsNo between-group adjusted difference was found on gambling summary variables. Sessions in the two groups were poorly discriminated one from another on four different machine-learning models. More than two-thirds of the gamblers resumed poker gambling after a first self-exclusion (n=1368), half of them within the first month. No between-group difference was found for the course of gambling after the first self-exclusion. 60.1% of first-time self-excluders self-excluded again (n=822). Losses in the previous month were greater before second self-exclusions than before the first.
conclusionsReported motives for self-exclusion appear non-informative, and could be misleading. Multiple self-exclusions seem to be more the rule than the exception. The process of self-exclusion should therefore be optimised from the first occurrence to protect heavy gamblers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.