ArticleJournal of gambling studies2022
The Identification of Low-risk Gambling Limits for Specific Gambling Activities.
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of lower-risk guidelines for online sports and race betting in Australia using objective behavioural data.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
- Betting on Your Feelings: The Interplay between Emotion and Cognition in Gambling Affective Task.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Separating Behaviours and Adverse Consequences in the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI): A Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Rasch Analysis.Journal of gambling studies · 2023Article
- The lived experience of financial harm from gambling in Australia.Health promotion international · 2023Article
- Older adults' perceptions of the risks associated with contemporary gambling environments: Implications for public health policy and practice.Frontiers in sociology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An emerging literature has identified optimal low-risk gambling limits in an effort to reduce gambling-related harm. Concerns have, however, been raised about the construction of aggregate low-risk limits that are applied to all gambling activities and there is support from gambling experts and the general public in Australia for the identification of low-risk limits for specific gambling activities. The study's aim was to identify and evaluate a set of empirically-based activity-specific limits (gambling frequency, gambling expenditure, gambling expenditure as a proportion of gross personal income, session expenditure, session duration) in a secondary analysis of Social and Economic Impact Studies of Gambling in Tasmania and the 2014 Survey on Gambling, Health and Wellbeing in the ACT. Balancing sensitivity and specificity, limits were identified for all gambling activities: EGMs (10 times per year, AUD$300/year, 0.63-1.04% of personal income, AUD$35 per session, 40 min/session), horse/dog racing (0.55% of personal income), instant scratch tickets (AUD$45/year), lotteries (0.45% of personal income), keno (4-13 times/year, AUD$45-$160/year), casino table games (AUD$345/year, 0.36-0.76% of personal income), bingo (AUD$150/year, 0.49% of personal income, AUD$17/session, 90 min/session), and sports/other event betting (14 times/year, AUD$400/year, 0.55-0.86% of personal income). These limits were exceeded by one-quarter to one-half of gamblers on these specific activities and were generally good predictors of gambling-related harm in subgroups of gamblers participating in these gambling activities and in the overall gambling sample. The limits provide gamblers, regulators, prevention workers, and researchers with simple rules of thumb in prevention efforts to reduce gambling-related harm in specific contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34061293What 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.