ArticleBMJ open2025
Effects of interventional public health laws and regulations intended to reduce gambling-related harms: a realist review study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Legal and regulatory responses to online gambling harms: a scoping review of evidence.Harm reduction journal · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGambling is now widely acknowledged to be a major public health (PH) issue. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities conservatively estimated that gambling harm is associated with an annual cost of £1.05-£1.77 billion in England alone. Marionneau METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We limit our focus to interventional PH laws and regulations within a comprehensive search of scientific and legal databases, grey literature and books. Following Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study, Timing inclusion criteria, evidence will be screened and appraised in Covidence by two reviewers (MF and TP). Included evidence will be analysed and synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. Methodological quality will be appraised using the relevant risk of bias tool. Randomised controlled trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) will be used for other non-randomised studies. Qualitative studies will be appraised using the EPPI reviewer software for systematic reviewing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) at the National Institute for Health Research and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York (CRD42024574502). We aim to define a theory of change and produce a context-mechanism-outcome framework with relevant experts using the findings. We plan to disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, meetings with relevant experts and international conference presentations.
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.