ArticleAddiction research & theory2025
Concentration of gambling spending by product type: analysis of gambling accounts records in Norway.
Article in Addiction research & theory, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The association between gambling frequency and risk of harm: Analysis using health survey data from England and Scotland.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Observational
- A scoping review of routinely collected linked data in research on gambling harm.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most previous studies on the distribution of gambling losses were based on self-reported data. In this study, we employed tracking data (i.e. electronic betting records) to examine the concentration of gambling losses and whether concentration varies by product type. Method: Tracking data were provided by the Norwegian gambling monopolist, Norsk Tipping (NT). Data comprised of 14 different games for a random draw of 2% ( Results: Across the 14 games, the mean/median ratio was 2.22, ranging from 1.37 to 17.48 for the different games, whereas the overall Gini coefficient was 0.65, ranging from 0.55 to 0.90. The upper 1%, 5% and 10% of those who gamble accounted for 17.9% (range = 5.6 - 3 8.3%), 39.5% (range = 23.6 - 74.3%), and 52.2% (range = 37.9 - 86.9%) of the losses, respectively. High concentration of losses was especially pronounced for one type of lottery (Keno), two online casino games (KongKasino and Bingoria), and for two sports betting games (Oddsen and Tipping). These findings were consistent across measures. Conclusion: Overall, the results lend strong support to the notion that a disproportionately large fraction of gambling losses are accounted for by a relatively small minority of people and that concentration of losses varies by product type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.