ReviewHarm reduction journal2019
A mapping review of research on gambling harm in three regulatory environments.
Review in Harm reduction journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emerging Gambling Problems and Suggested Interventions: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research.Journal of gambling studies · 2023Pooled it
- Public health implications of the deregulation and privatization of online and sports gambling in Canada.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Article
- Understanding gambling in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study on the experiences of gamblers' families.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Legacy gambling harms: What are they and how long do they last?Journal of behavioral addictions · 2022Article
- 18-Item Version of the Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS-18): Validation of Screen for Assessing Gambling-Related Harm among Finnish Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The Evolution of Gambling-Related Harm Measurement: Lessons from the Last Decade.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- The prevention paradox applies to some but not all gambling harms: Results from a Finnish population-representative survey.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2020Article
- The Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling: A revised framework for understanding gambling harm.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHarmful gambling is a complex issue with diverse antecedents and resulting harms that have been studied from multiple disciplinary perspectives. Although previous bibliometric reviews of gambling studies have found a dominance of judgement and decision-making research, no bibliometric review has examined the concept of "harm" in the gambling literature, and little work has quantitatively assessed how gambling research priorities differ between countries.
methodsGuided by the Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling (CFHG), an internationally relevant framework of antecedents to harmful gambling, we conducted a bibliometric analysis focusing on research outputs from three countries with different gambling regulatory environments: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Using a Web of Science database search, 1424 articles published from 2008 to 2017 were retrieved that could be mapped to the eight CFHG factors. A subsample of articles (n = 171) containing the word "harm" in the title, abstract, or keywords was then drawn. Descriptive statistics were used to examine differences between countries and trends over time with regard to CFHG factor and harm focus.
resultsPsychological and biological factors dominate gambling research in Canada whereas resources and treatment have received more attention in New Zealand. A greater percentage of Australia and New Zealand publications address the gambling environment and exposure to gambling than in Canada. The subset of articles focused on harm showed a stronger harms focus among New Zealand and Australian researchers compared to Canadian-authored publications.
conclusionsThe findings provide preliminary bibliometric evidence that gambling research foci may be shaped by jurisdictional regulation of gambling. Countries with privately operated gambling focused on harm factors that are the operators' responsibility, whereas jurisdictions with a public health model focused on treatment and harm reduction resources. In the absence of a legislated requirement for public health or harm minimisation focus, researchers in jurisdictions with government-operated gambling tend to focus research on factors that are the individual's responsibility and less on the harms they experience. Given increased international attention to gambling-related harm, regulatory and research environments could promote and support more diverse research in this area.
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.