A mapping review of research on gambling harm in three regulatory environments

Abstract

BackgroundHarmful gambling is a complex issue with diverse antecedents and resulting harms that have been studied from multiple disciplinary perspectives. Although previous bibliometric reviews of gambling studies have found a dominance of judgement and decision-making research, no bibliometric review has examined the concept of “harm” in the gambling literature, and little work has quantitatively assessed how gambling research priorities differ between countries.MethodsGuided by the Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling (CFHG), an internationally relevant framework of antecedents to harmful gambling, we conducted a bibliometric analysis focusing on research outputs from three countries with different gambling regulatory environments: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Using a Web of Science database search, 1424 articles published from 2008 to 2017 were retrieved that could be mapped to the eight CFHG factors. A subsample of articles (n = 171) containing the word “harm” in the title, abstract, or keywords was then drawn. Descriptive statistics were used to examine differences between countries and trends over time with regard to CFHG factor and harm focus.ResultsPsychological and biological factors dominate gambling research in Canada whereas resources and treatment have received more attention in New Zealand. A greater percentage of Australia and New Zealand publications address the gambling environment and exposure to gambling than in Canada. The subset of articles focused on harm showed a stronger harms focus among New Zealand and Australian researchers compared to Canadian-authored publications.ConclusionsThe findings provide preliminary bibliometric evidence that gambling research foci may be shaped by jurisdictional regulation of gambling. Countries with privately operated gambling focused on harm factors that are the operators’ responsibility, whereas jurisdictions with a public health model focused on treatment and harm reduction resources. In the absence of a legislated requirement for public health or harm minimisation focus, researchers in jurisdictions with government-operated gambling tend to focus research on factors that are the individual’s responsibility and less on the harms they experience. Given increased international attention to gambling-related harm, regulatory and research environments could promote and support more diverse research in this area.

The Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling: A revised framework for understanding gambling harm

“…First, it focuses on harm at all levels including the individual, significant others, communities, and society overall. This represents a shift from the dominant psychological approach that concentrates on individual symptomology and treatment (Baxter et al, 2019;Eber & Shaffer, 2000;Hancock & Smith, 2017;Shaffer, Stanton, & Nelson, 2006). Second, it demonstrates areas of robust evidence and identifies knowledge gaps.…”

“…In this way, it can help to enable evidence-based decision making and guide research programs. Although the Framework intent is to address factors related to harmful gambling at multiple levels, it is somewhat limited at present by the dominance of psychological research focused at the individual level (Baxter, Hilbrecht, & Wheaton, 2019). This may be starting to shift, however, as more researchers approach harmful gambling from a public health perspective that examines multiple contributing factors at the population level (e.g., see Browne et al, 2016;Korn & Shaffer, 1999;Wardle, Reith, Langham, & Rogers, 2019).…”

“…This factor explores how individual differences and other psychological disorders and conditions may make people more susceptible to harmful gambling. With the greater volume of research that can be assigned to the psychological factors (Baxter et al, 2019;Hancock & Smith, 2017), it is perhaps not surprising that it has the greatest diversity of subfactors. Six of the nine subfactors were carried forward with updated evidence, two underwent more substantial revisions, and one new subfactor was added.…”

Systems of funding for gambling research

“…68 Another benefit of this research programme is that the research agenda is diverse, and emphasizes studying the broad socioeconomic effects of gambling, which are historically understudied in gambling research. 48 Furthermore, it is a legislated requirement that there be an annual research programme, and that the programme has a dedicated fund, rather than one larger "Responsible Gambling Fund", that must be divided between research, prevention, and treatment as is common in other jurisdictions.…”

Research Expertise and the Framework of Harms: Social Network Analysis, Phase One

“…This aligns with gambling research internationally, where much research attention has been given to identifying, understanding, and treating gambling problems. 5,16 Several extensive collaborations with strong ties exist within the Health factor, reflecting a long history of research from a psychological perspective. Included are a number of multi-super factor and multisubfactor coauthors, which differs from the Resources and Relationships factors.…”