ArticleBMC public health2026
An uneven playing field: a mixed methods, multiphase feasibility study of a programme to reduce gambling among at-risk men in a professional football club setting.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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.
- Developing an implementation strategy to scale a community-based football intervention for Men's health: an implementation science study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSports betting is a growth area for the gambling industry, with football fans a key target of advertising. Men are particularly at risk from gambling harm. The 8-week Football Fans and Betting (FFAB) intervention was designed for delivery in professional football clubs by club community coaches to reduce sports betting and other forms of gambling among men aged 18–55 with a PGSI score of < 15. This paper reports the acceptability and feasibility of delivering FFAB in England.
methodsWe conducted a multiphase, mixed methods, feasibility study of the FFAB intervention, assessing feasibility through three criteria: recruitment, fidelity and acceptability. We generated quantitative process and attendance data to assess recruitment and retention, and observation, interview and focus group data to examine fidelity and acceptability. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, qualitative data using thematic analysis, before being combined using triangulation protocol to assess feasibility against the three criteria.
resultsFFAB was launched in six clubs. Despite multiple attempts to refine and improve recruitment processes, no club was able to recruit the target number of participants to the programme. Retention on the programme also faced challenges. The saturation of football’s commercial landscape by the gambling industry and stigma-related social dynamics appear to underpin these findings. Due to recruitment and retention challenges, fidelity criteria were not met. However, participants that attended the programme, and coaches that delivered it, reported that FFAB was acceptable and supported some to make changes to their gambling behaviours. Throughout the qualitative dataset, participants and coaches emphasised the necessity of intervention to prevent gambling harms among men.
conclusionsWe found that FFAB was acceptable to the coaches who delivered it and the participants who attended. However, our model for recruitment did not work, with consequences for fidelity. We also faced difficulties with retention. More feasibility work to develop a different approach to a gambling reduction with men between 18 and 55 with a PGSI score of less than 15 is required.
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.