Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33793416›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2021

The identification of Australian low-risk gambling limits: A comparison of gambling-related harm measures.

Nicki A Dowling, Christopher J Greenwood, Stephanie S Merkouris, George J Youssef, Matthew Browne, Matthew Rockloff, Paul Myers

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Evolution of Gambling-Related Harm Measurement: Lessons from the Last Decade.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicki A Dowling1School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8592-2407
Christopher J Greenwood1School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.
Stephanie S Merkouris1School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.
George J Youssef1School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.
Matthew Browne4Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory, CQUniversity, Bundaberg, QLD, Australia.
Matthew Rockloff4Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory, CQUniversity, Bundaberg, QLD, Australia.
Paul Myers5The Social Research Centre, Australian National University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Deakin University · AUIndigenous Wellbeing Centre · AUAustralian National University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsProblem gambling severity and gambling-related harm are closely coupled, but conceptually distinct, constructs. The primary aim was to compare low-risk gambling limits when gambling-related harm was defined using the negative consequence items of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI-Harm) and the Short Gambling Harms Scale items (SGHS-Harm). A secondary aim was compare low-risk limits derived using a definition of harm in which at least two harms across different domains (e.g. financial and relationship) were endorsed with a definition of harm in which at least two harms from any domain were endorsed.

methodsData were collected from dual-frame computer-assisted telephone interviews of 5,000 respondents in the fourth Social and Economic Impact Study (SEIS) of Gambling in Tasmania. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyse were conducted to identify low-risk gambling limits.

resultsPGSI-Harm and SGHS-Harm definitions produced similar overall limits: 30-37 times per year; AUD$510-$544 per year; expenditure comprising no more than 10.2-10.3% of gross personal income; 400-454 minutes per year; and 2 types of gambling activities per year. Acceptable limits (AUC ≥0.70) were identified for horse/dog racing, keno, and sports/other betting using the PGSI definition; and electronic gaming machines, keno, and bingo using the SGHS definition. The requirement that gamblers endorse two or more harms across different domains had a relatively negligible effect. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsAlthough replications using alternative measures of harm are required, previous PGSI-based limits appear to be robust thresholds that have considerable potential utility in the prevention of gambling-related harm.

Indexed as

Risk-TakingAdultAgedFemaleGamblingHumansIncomeInterpersonal RelationsMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsRisk AssessmentROC CurveSeverity of Illness IndexTasmaniaYoung Adultgamblinggambling harmgambling-related harmlow-risk guidelineslow-risk limitsresponsible gambling

Identifiers

PMID33793416
PMCPMC8969860
OpenAlexW3148604794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.