Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39200609›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024

Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.

Ben J Riley, Jane Oakes, Sharon Lawn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Ben J RileyCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4188-0027
Jane OakesCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3571-2556
Sharon LawnCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5464-8887

Funding

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation SR/22/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The harms accompanying disordered gambling are well documented. Additionally, there is growing attention to the harms that arise from people who gamble heavily but do not meet the criteria for a gambling disorder. Accordingly, there has been an increasing interest in the effectiveness of consumer protection tools for consumers of gambling products. Subsequently, there is a need to properly evaluate the evidence for their effectiveness. This review aimed to conduct a narrative synthesis of empirical studies to identify gaps, weaknesses, and strengths in the existing evidence for the effectiveness of harm minimisation tools available to people who gamble. This review includes studies published between January 2015 to July 2022 and comprises 55 peer-reviewed studies for final synthesis. Findings reveal that while more research is needed to examine the effectiveness of active and passive consumer protection tools, uptake of tools is low in part because users view them as tools for individuals already experiencing gambling harm as opposed to protective tools for all users. Research is needed to determine effective ways of communicating the value of consumer protection tools for gambling.

Indexed as

GamblingHarm ReductionBehavior, AddictiveHumansconsumer protection toolseffectivenessgamblingharm reductionpreventionproblem gambling

Identifiers

PMID39200609
PMCPMC11353816

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.