Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33969455›Full record

ReviewJournal of gambling studies2021

Empirical Evidence Relating to the Relative Riskiness of Scratch-Card Gambling.

Paul Delfabbro, Jonathan Parke

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of gambling studies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Paul DelfabbroSchool of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. paul.delfabbro@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0466-5611
Jonathan Parke, Sophro, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scratch cards (SCs) or tickets are lottery-based games which are played by scratching to reveal numbers, letters or symbols to win prizes. Such activities have sometimes been likened to paper-based slot-machines, but relatively little systematic analyses have been conducted to examine the risk or harm associated with these activities. In this paper, we provide a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature relating to the potential association between SCs and problem gambling and what is known from publically available data sources (e.g., prevalence studies and treatment data). Evidence is analysed within the context of the Bradford Hill Criteria. Both prevalence and peer reviewed literature suggest that SCs are less strongly associated with problem gambling than most other gambling activities. We argue that this difference is due to the nature of the products. SC gambling differs from slot-machine gambling in a number of structural ways; it is less continuous; has a slower event frequency; and, emerging literature suggests that near-miss design features are unlikely to have a significant impact upon behaviour. Thus, in our view, and based on the empirical evidence, it appears that earlier parallels between SCs and slot-machines now appear more tenuous. Nevertheless, we encourage further investigation into the potential impact of new and emerging online lottery products because of the more immersive, faster and more technology-based nature of these products.

Indexed as

Awards and PrizesGamblingCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRiskRisk-TakingHarmLotteriesProblem gamblingRiskScratch cards

Identifiers

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.