Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31013926›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019

A Multivariate Evaluation of 25 Proximal and Distal Risk-Factors for Gambling-Related Harm.

Matthew Browne, Nerilee Hing, Matthew Rockloff, Alex M T Russell, Nancy Greer, Fiona Nicoll, Garry Smith

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthew BrowneExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive Bundaberg, Branyan, QLD 4670, Australia. m.browne@cqu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2668-6229
Nerilee HingExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive Bundaberg, Branyan, QLD 4670, Australia. n.hing@cqu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2150-9784
Matthew RockloffExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive Bundaberg, Branyan, QLD 4670, Australia. m.rockloff@cqu.edu.au.
Alex M T RussellExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive Bundaberg, Branyan, QLD 4670, Australia. a.m.russell@cqu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3685-7220
Nancy GreerExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive Bundaberg, Branyan, QLD 4670, Australia. n.greer@cqu.edu.au.
Fiona NicollDepartment of Political Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada. f.nicoll@ualberta.ca.
Garry SmithFaculty of Extension, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada. garrysm@ualberta.ca.

Funding

Alberta Gambling Research Institute, University of Alberta NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual differences in the risk of developing gambling-related harm play an important role in theoretical models and practical interventions. The present study attempted comprehensive measurement and evaluation of 25 known risk factors for gambling-related harm in order to determine which factors provided large and unique explanatory power. We surveyed 1650 regular gamblers from an online panel, screening in 1174 (466 male) who passed all checks of attention and response consistency. We evaluated each risk factor based on bivariate correlations with harms, then made separate multivariate evaluations of proximal (e.g., gambling motivations) and distal (e.g., religiosity) risk factors. Almost all bivariate correlations were significant, but most distal factors were not significant in multivariate models. Trait impulsivity was the most important risk factor by a large margin. Excessive consumption, less use of safe gambling practices, and more fallacies were key proximal risks of harm. Many well-known correlates of gambling harm (e.g., youth, lower educational attainment) do not show a direct role in the development of gambling harm when controlling for other factors. The results support theoretical models that emphasise early conditioning and biological vulnerability (manifested through impulsivity). Since maladaptive cognitive and behavioural schemas appear to be more important than motivations (e.g., escape, excitement, ego), interventions may benefit by targeting these proximal drivers of harm.

Indexed as

early experiencesfallaciesgambling problemsgambling-related harmimpulsivityrisk factorssafe gambling practices

Identifiers

PMID31013926
PMCPMC6518151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.