ArticleBMC public health2025
Towards more reliable gambling cost estimates, a population-based study with register-linkage.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAlthough past research has shown a strong association between gambling participation and harms, relatively few studies have attempted to quantify the cost of these harms to society. The need to quantify costs has been identified in several countries, however, no consensus exists in the field of gambling studies on how one should estimate them.
methodsThree methods were selected for costs calculations: Causality adjustment factors (with two variations: CAF 80%/ CAF 50%), Excess costs, and a method based on Bayes theorem. Our purpose was not to examine the overall costs of gambling, but rather to evaluate different approaches for one specific outcome. Our focus was on indirect costs relating to productivity losses associated with long-term work disability in those aged 18-64 years who had experienced gambling problems before long-term work disability had started. Work disability was operationalized as the net days of sickness absence and disability pension. The study used population-based Gambling Harms survey and the survey data were linked with the register data.
resultsThese three methods gave very different estimates on costs relating to productivity losses associated past problem gambling. The Excess cost method gave the highest estimate of 127.04 (59.26 Int$/adult) followed by the Causality adjustment method (CAF80%) of 123.61 (57.66 Int$/adult) and CAF 50% with 77.26 (36.04 Int$/adult). The method based on Bayes theorem gave the lowest estimate of the cost at 18.28 million euros (8.52 Int$/adult).
conclusionsMethods commonly used in gambling cost studies yield higher estimates of gambling costs when arbitrary causality adjustment methods are used. Bayes theorem allows leveraging data on temporal patterns of gambling problems to estimate the plausible proportion where gambling is the precipitating factor for the experienced harm, rather than the other way around. Additionally, costs could be presented as Int$ per adult using the PPP exchange rate to facilitate the comparison of gambling costs between countries.
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.