Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41082066›Full record

ArticleJournal of gambling studies2025

Mandatory Third-Party Exclusion of Individuals with Gambling Problems in Germany: Data from the OASIS Player Exclusion System.

Gerhard Meyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Gerhard MeyerUniversity of Bremen, Grazer Strasse 2, Bremen, 28359, Germany. gerhard.meyer@uni-bremen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0082-0167

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While self-exclusion for individuals who gamble is widely recognized and implemented as an important consumer protection measure worldwide, third-party exclusion, initiated by relatives or gambling providers, is currently only available in a few countries. The aim of this article is to provide a timely descriptive evaluation of the exclusion registry in Germany, where third-party exclusion is mandatory by law, in relation to different types of gambling and the frequency of use by gambling providers. The relevant authority has provided data from licensed providers, broken down by self-exclusion and third-party exclusion. The majority of exclusion requests in 2024 (N = 303,876) were made through self-exclusion. Specifically, 96.8% of all exclusions were initiated by the players themselves, while only 3.2% resulted from third-party requests. The lowest proportions of third-party exclusions were observed in the sectors of gambling halls with German-style slot machines (0.7%), virtual slot machines (1.1%), and online poker (1.5%). The low proportion of third-party exclusions may be due to a conflict of interest, as gambling providers often generate significant revenue from individuals with gambling problems, making this group a lucrative target market. However, preliminary empirical evidence suggests that third-party exclusions have positive effects, showing comparable rates of abstinence and reduced gambling behavior to those who self-exclude. Mandatory third-party exclusions help minimize harm and represent a valuable addition to public health strategies. Nevertheless, further research is needed to expand the limited database, and the low use of third-party exclusions by providers calls for stronger regulatory oversight.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveGamblingAdultFemaleGermanyHumansMaleRegistriesGamblingGambling disorderLegal regulationsPublic healthSelf-exclusionThird-party exclusion

Identifiers

PMID41082066
PMCPMC12657536

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.