Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31119509›Full record

ArticleJournal of gambling studies2020

Use of Consumer Protection Tools on Internet Gambling Sites: Customer Perceptions, Motivators, and Barriers to Use.

Sally M Gainsbury, Douglas J Angus, Lindsey Procter, Alex Blaszczynski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Perspective of Internet Poker Players on Harm-Reduction Strategies: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sally M GainsburyGambling Treatment and Research Clinic, Science Faculty, Brain and Mind Centre, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, 94 Mallett St, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. sally.gainsbury@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9641-5838
Douglas J AngusGambling Treatment and Research Clinic, Science Faculty, Brain and Mind Centre, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, 94 Mallett St, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9722-2475
Lindsey ProcterGambling Treatment and Research Clinic, Science Faculty, Brain and Mind Centre, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, 94 Mallett St, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Alex BlaszczynskiGambling Treatment and Research Clinic, Science Faculty, Brain and Mind Centre, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, 94 Mallett St, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1476-0791
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council DE1060100459
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Internet gambling has been widely legalised in recognition of its capacity to, and the importance of, providing consumer protection tools to prevent and minimise gambling-related harms. Most licensed Internet gambling sites are required to provide consumer protection tools, including activity statements, deposit limits, and time-outs (temporary self-exclusion). However, few Internet gambling customers engage with the tools. An online survey of 564 customers of Australian Internet gambling sites aimed to understand the extent to which consumer protection tools are used, characteristics of those using these tools, and the perceptions and attitudes towards tool use, including barriers to use. Most participants were aware of the tools and had accessed activity statements; few had used deposit limits (24.5%) or time-outs (8.1%) but use of these restrictive tools was higher among those at-risk of gambling problems. Satisfaction with tools was generally high among users and tools were mostly used as intended; however, only moderate changes in behaviour were reported. Participants predominately did not use the restrictive tools as they did not see these as relevant for them, and they were perceived to be intended for people with gambling problems. The findings are important to drive necessary improvements to consumer protection efforts including efforts to encourage perception that tools are relevant for all customers. Changes to current practice, including terminology and promotion of tools, are needed by Internet gambling operators and policy makers to improve the utilisation and effectiveness of consumer protection tools to enable sustainable gambling among the broader cohort of Internet gamblers.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorHarm ReductionSocial Control, InformalAdultAustraliaFemaleGamblingHumansInternetMaleMotivationSurveys and QuestionnairesHarm minimisationOnline gamblingPreventionResponsible gamblingSelf-exclusionVoluntary pre-commitment

Identifiers

PMID31119509
OpenAlexW2944955999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.