Loot boxes (LBs) are video game-related purchases with a chance-based outcome. Due to similarities with gambling, they have come under increasing scrutiny from media, academics and policymakers alike. Initial evidence suggested that LB engagement might be associated with both problem gambling (PG) and problem video gaming (PVG). We therefore conducted a systematic review of the evidence for associations between LB purchasing, PG and PVG. For LB/PG, 12 of 13 publications reported a positive relationship, with a moderately sized mean effect of r = .27. For LB/PVG, the mean effect was r = .40, although this finding was drawn from only six surveys in total. For PG/PVG, the mean effect was r = .21, with only 11 of 20 studies reporting significant effects. While further evidence is required to determine the direction of causality, the strength of relationships suggests that policy action on LBs may have benefits for harm minimisation.

Introduction Loot boxes are purchasable randomised reward mechanisms in video games. Due to structural and psychological similarities with gambling, there are fears that loot box purchasing may be associated with problematic gambling. Whilst monthly expenditure is typically modest (i.e. < $20), the distribution is highly skewed, with a small number of high-level spenders, sometimes referred to as "whales". It is not known what proportion of industry profits are derived from such players, and whether they are typically wealthy individuals and/or problem gamblers. Methods We used structured literature searches to identify surveys of gamers with open-access loot box data. The resulting datasets were aggregated, and correlations between loot box expenditure, problem gambling and earnings investigated using Spearman's rho correlations. Results The combined open-access data comprised 7,767 loot box purchasers (5,933 with self-report earnings). Secondary analysis of this self-report data confirmed that disproportionate revenue appears to be generated from high-level spenders: the top 5 % of spenders (> $100/month) represent half of loot box revenue. Previously reported correlations between problem gambling and loot box expenditure were confirmed, with an aggregate correlation of ρ = .34, p < .001. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between loot box spend and earnings ρ = .02, p = .10. Conclusion Our secondary analysis suggests that games developers (unwittingly or not) are disproportionately profiting from moderate and high-risk gamblers, rather than high earning customers. Such patterns of spending mirror those observed with gambling revenues, and have implications for harm minimisation and ongoing policy debates around loot boxes.

BackgroundMeasuring patient experiences of healthcare is increasingly emphasized as a mechanism to measure, benchmark and drive quality improvement, clinical effectiveness and patient safety at both national and local NHS level. Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is the conjunction of two constructs; person-centred care and care coordination. It is a complex intervention requiring support for changes to organizational structure and the behaviour of professionals and patients. P3C can be defined as: ‘care and support that is guided by and organized effectively around the needs and preferences of individuals’. Despite the vast array of PRMS available, remarkably few tools have been designed that efficiently probe the core domains of P3C. This paper presents the psychometric properties of a newly developed PREM to evaluate P3C from a patient perspective.MethodsA customized EMIS search was conducted at 72 GP practices across the South West (Somerset, Devon and Cornwall) to identify 100 patients with 1 or more LTCs, and are frequent users of primary healthcare services. Partial Credit Rasch Modelling was conducted to identify dimensionality and internal consistency. Ecological validity and sensitivity to change were assessed as part of intervention designed to improve P3C in adults with multiple long-term conditions; comparisons were drawn between the P3CEQ and qualitative data.ResultsResponse rate for the P3CEQ was 32.82%. A two-factor model was identified. Rasch analysis confirmed unidimensionality of each factor (using infit MSQ values between 0.5 and 1.5). High internal consistency was established for both factors; For the Person-centred scale Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.829, Person separation = 0.756 and for the coordination scale Cronbach’s alpha = 0.783, person separation = 0.672.ConclusionsThe P3CEQ is a valid and reliable measure of P3C. The P3C is considered to have strong face, construct and ecological validity, with demonstrable sensitivity to change in a primary healthcare intervention.

BackgroundTo ascertain whether person centred coordinated care (P3C) is being delivered in healthcare services, components relating to the construct need to be measured. Patient reported measures (PRMs) can be used to provide a measurement of patients’ experiences of P3C. Traditionally, they have been used to assess whether interventions are delivering P3C. Recently there has been an increased interest in using them to directly enhance P3C in clinical practice by, for example, improving practitioner-patient communication. However, there is limited research available on how P3C can be implemented in practice. This study aimed to extend this literature base by exploring how professionals use PRMs to enhance P3C.MethodsCross sectional thematic analysis of 26 semi-structured interviews with a variety of professionals who have experience of how PRMs can be used to make improvements to P3C. Inductive themes were mapped onto components of P3C care that fell under five established domains of P3C (Information and Communication; My Goals/Outcomes; Decision making; Care Planning and Transitions) to explore whether and how individual components of P3C were being improved through PRMs. Barriers and facilitators that affected the delivery and the results of the PRMs were also identified.ResultsThree P3C domains (Information and Communication, My Goals/Outcomes and Care Planning) were mapped frequently onto themes generated by the participants’ interviews about PRM use. However, the domain ‘Decision Making’ was only mapped onto one theme and ‘Transitions’ was not mapped at all.Participant reports suggested that PRM use by practitioners enhanced patients’ ability to self-manage, communicate, engage and reflect during consultations. Barriers to PRM use were related to a lack of a whole service approach to implementation.ConclusionsPractitioners use both PROMs and PREMs in various ways to improve different aspects of patient care. By sharing experiences professionals can benefit from each other’s learning and work together to extend the potential value that PRMs can offer to P3C delivery.

Background:Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is a priority for stakeholders (ie, patients, carers, professionals, policy makers). As a part of the development of an evaluation framework for P3C, we set out to identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) suitable for routine measurement and feedback during the development of services.Methods:A rapid review of the literature was undertaken to identity existing PREMs suitable for the probing person-centred and/or coordinated care. Of 74 measures identified, 7 met our inclusion criteria. We critically examined these against core domains and subdomains of P3C. Measures were then presented to stakeholders in codesign workshops to explore acceptability, utility, and their strengths/weaknesses.Results:The Long-Term Condition 6 questionnaire was preferred for its short length, utility, and tone. However, it lacked key questions in each core domain, and in response to requests from our codesign group, new questions were added to cover consideration as a whole person, coordination, care plans, carer involvement, and a single coordinator. Cognitive interviews, on-going codesign, and mapping to core P3C domains resulted in the refinement of the questionnaire to 11 items with 1 trigger question. The 11-item modified version was renamed the P3C Experiences Questionnaire.Conclusions:Due to a dearth of brief measures available to capture people’s experience of P3C for routine practice, an existing measure was modified using an iterative process of adaption and validation through codesign workshops. Next steps include psychometric validation and modification for people with dementia and learning difficulties.

No abstract

Background and Aims: Loot boxes are purchasable randomised rewards in video games that share structural and psychological similarities with gambling. Systematic review evidence has established reproducible associations between loot box purchasing and both problem gambling and problem video gaming. We aimed to measure the association between loot box engagement and socioeconomic correlates. Design:The study was a cross-sectional online survey using the recruitment platform, Prolific.

Excessive engagement with (increasingly prevalent) loot boxes within games has consistently been linked with disordered gambling and/or gaming. The importance of recognising and managing potential risks associated with loot box involvement means understanding contributing factors is a pressing research priority. Given that motivations for gaming and gambling have been informative in understanding risky engagement with those behaviours, this qualitative study investigated motivations for buying loot boxes, through in-depth interviews with 28 gamers from across the UK. A reflexive thematic analysis categorised reasons for buying into seven “themes”; opening experience; value of box contents; game-related elements; social influences; emotive/impulsive influences; fear of missing out; triggers/facilitators. These themes are described in detail and discussed in relation to the existing literature and motivation theories. This study contributes to understanding ways in which digital items within loot boxes can be highly valued by purchasers, informing the debate around parallels with gambling. Findings that certain motivations were disproportionately endorsed by participants with symptoms of problematic gambling has potential implications for policy and warrants further study.