Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41063227›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2025

Legal and regulatory responses to online gambling harms: a scoping review of evidence.

Michelle L Fisher, Theodore Piper, Matthew Fitzpatrick, Sonia Mavi, Ameeta Retzer, Caroline Bradbury-Jones, Paul Montgomery, G J Melendez-Torres, Joelle Kirby, Joht Singh Chandan and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Michelle L FisherDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. m.l.fisher@bham.ac.uk.
Theodore PiperBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Matthew FitzpatrickBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Sonia MaviDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Ameeta RetzerCollege of Social Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Caroline Bradbury-JonesDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Paul MontgomeryDepartment of Social Policy, Sociology and Criminology, School of Social Policy and Society, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
G J Melendez-TorresFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Joelle KirbyFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Joht Singh ChandanDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Kate BedfordBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR156218
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesise original research on the distinct challenges of regulating the online sector, and the efficacy of public health legal interventions aimed at reducing online gambling harm.

backgroundBoth legal and public health scholars increasingly view gambling as a public health concern. Gambling puts individuals at risk of a range of harms, including related to finances, relationships, mental health, physical health, employment/education, and criminal activity. Harmful gambling can extend beyond the realms of individual harm to affect others including wider society. Online gambling is growing in many countries-e.g. it accounts for 44% of gambling turnover in the UK-and it is seen as especially harmful compared to land-based gambling due to the accessibility, and fast-paced nature of the products available. In addition, there are distinct harms associated with the overlap between gaming and gambling, most prominently through the challenges that exist in the regulation of loot boxes. Legal and public health scholars recommend legal interventions to reduce the harms of gambling, including online gambling.

methodsFollowing a PICOST inclusion/exclusion criteria, we completed a comprehensive scoping review of scientific and legal data sources to ascertain the efficacy of legal interventions on reducing online gambling harms. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was completed.

resultsWe include 27 data sources which either described distinct challenges of regulating online gambling or evaluated the efficacy of laws and regulations. Current gambling harm reduction research is heavily focused on using an individual approach, rather than a systems approach. When a systems approach is taken, it often prioritises tackling unlicensed gambling and blocking mechanics, which require a comprehensive delivery strategy to be effective. Significant gaps exist in examining the effectiveness of interventions on subgroups of the population.

conclusionsInadequate legal and regulatory frameworks have played a crucial role in the proliferation of online gambling harms; studies vary in their explanation for this inadequacy. There is an urgent need for more robust research on law, regulation, and online gambling harms to critically explore the implications of technology, ongoing innovation, and the intervention generated inequalities of regulating online gambling.

Indexed as

GamblingHarm ReductionInternetHumansPublic HealthGambling harmLawOnline gamblingRegulation

Identifiers

PMID41063227
PMCPMC12505849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.