Communications-based early detection of gambling-related problems in online gambling

Haefeli, Joerg; Lischer, Suzanne; Haeusler, Joachim

doi:10.1080/14459795.2014.980297

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 16 included studies for data extraction comprised 13 quantitative studies (Dragicevic et al., 2015; Haefeli et al, 2015; Haeusler, 2016; Hayer & Meyer, 2011a, 2011b; Hing, Russell, Tolchard, et al, 2015; LaBrie et al., 2007; Ladouceur et al., 2000, 2007; Nelson et al., 2010; Nower & Blaszczynski, 2006, 2008; Tremblay et al., 2008), 2 qualitative studies (Hing, Nuske, et al, 2015; Hing et al., 2014), and 1 mixed method study (Hing & Nuske, 2012). As shown in Table 1, the quality scores of all included articles ranged between 0.65 and 1.0 (0.0 = poor quality and 1.0 = excellent quality).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsSelf-exclusion programs offer an intervention for individuals with problem gambling behavior. However, these programs are insufficiently used. This review describes sociodemographic features and gambling behavior of self-excluders as well as goals and motives for initiating self-exclusion from terrestrial and online gambling. In addition, use of further professional help and barriers to self-exclusion are examined.MethodsBased on systematic literature search and quality assessment, n = 16 original studies (13 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 1 mixed method) published between 1997 and 2017 in English or German language were analyzed. Results are presented for online and terrestrial gambling separately.ResultsOnline self-excluders were on average 10 years younger than terrestrial self-excluders. Self-exclusion was mainly motivated by financial problems, followed by feelings of losing control and problems with significant others. Financial problems and significant others were less important for online than for terrestrial gamblers. Main barriers for self-exclusion were complicated enrollment processes, lack of complete exclusion from all venues, little support from venue staff, and lack of adequate information on self-exclusion programs. Both self-excluders from terrestrial and online gambling had negative attitudes toward the need of professional addiction care.ConclusionTo exploit the full potential of self-exclusion as a measure of gambler protection, its acceptance and its utilization need to be increased by target-group-specific information addressing financial issues and the role of significant others, simplifying the administrative processes, facilitating self-exclusion at an early stage of the gambling career, offering self-determined exclusion durations, and promoting additional use of professional addiction care.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In comparison to existing algorithms using gambling behaviour to predict future gambling-related problems (Braverman et al, 2013;Braverman & Shaffer, 2012;LaBrie & Shaffer, 2011;LaPlante et al, 2014) or communication behaviour (Haefeli et al, 2011(Haefeli et al, , 2015, the validity of this approach is relatively modest.…”

Section: Multivariate Modelmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Self-exclusion is often used as a proxy for gambling-related problems to validate behavioural predictors against (Adami et al, 2013;Braverman & Shaffer, 2012;Dragicevic et al, 2015;Haefeli, Lischer, & Haeusler, 2015;Haefeli et al, 2011;LaBrie & Shaffer, 2011), since the majority of self-excluders can be considered problem gamblers (Ladouceur, Jacques, Giroux, Ferland, & Leblond, 2000). Meyer and Hayer (2010) cautioned that on the Internet, the association between self-exclusion and gambling-related problems could be weaker, since players also self-excluded for reasons like dissatisfaction with the operator.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Follow the money: using payment behaviour as predictor for future self-exclusion

Haeusler¹

2016

International Gambling Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the second study, software was used to analyse the same type of communication in the same sample as in the previous study. The results showed that a combination of ratings performed by employees and automated text analysis was the most effective way to detect future excessive gamblers ( Haefeli et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences of Playscan: Interviews with users of a responsible gambling tool

Forsström

Jansson‐Fröjmark

Hesser

et al. 2017

Internet Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online gambling, encompassing a wide variety of activities and around-the-clock access, can be a potential risk factor for gamblers who tend to gamble excessively. Yet, the advent of online gambling has enabled responsible gambling (RG) features that may help individuals to limit their gambling behaviour. One of these features is RG tools that track gamblers' behaviour, performs risk assessments and provides advice to gamblers. This study investigated users' views and experiences of the RG tool Playscan from a qualitative perspective using a semi-structured interview. The tool performs a risk assessment on a three-step scale (low, medium and high risk). Users from every risk category were included. Twenty interviews were carried out and analysed using thematic analysis. Two main themes with associated sub-themes were identified: “Usage of Playscan and the gambling site” and “Experiences of Playscan”. Important experiences in the sub-themes were lack of feedback from the tool and confusion when signing up to use Playscan. These experiences counteracted positive attitudes that should have promoted usage of the tool. Providing more feedback directly to users is a suggested solution to increase usage of the RG tool.

show abstract

Communications-based early detection of gambling-related problems in online gambling

Cited by 20 publications

References 35 publications

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review

Follow the money: using payment behaviour as predictor for future self-exclusion

Experiences of Playscan: Interviews with users of a responsible gambling tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About