Differential Effects of Formal and Informal Gambling on Symptoms of Problem Gambling During Voluntary Self-Exclusion

Abstract

Voluntary self-exclusion (VSE) programs enable problem gamblers to engage in a break from casino-based gambling. The current study analyzed the effects of a VSE program in British Columbia, Canada on problem gambling symptoms and the comparative reductions in problem gambling symptoms when participants abstained from gambling, continued to participate in non-casino based gambling, or attempted to violate their exclusion contract. 269 participants completed two telephone interviews over a 6-month period. Participants were administered the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Substantial reductions in PGSI scores were observed after 6 months. Program violators had significantly smaller PGSI Difference Scores by Time 2 compared to those who continued to gamble outside of the casino and those who completely abstained from all gambling. There were no significant differences between those who gambled informally and those who abstained. A multiple regression identified that while access to counselling and length of enrollment also contributed to the reduction in PGSI scores, violation attempts were most strongly associated with smaller reductions in symptoms of problem gambling. These results imply that some gamblers can successfully engage in non-casino based forms of gambling and still experience reductions in symptoms of problem gambling. Future analyses will explore characteristics associated with group membership that may help to identify which participants can successfully engage in non-casino based gambling without re-triggering symptoms of problem gambling.

Gambling Despite Nationwide Self-Exclusion–A Survey in Online Gamblers in Sweden

“…In the study by McCormick and collaborators, self-exclusion violators were described not to differ substantially from those adhering to gambling abstinence; however, PGSI scores proved to be improved after a period of self-exclusion, although with less of a reduction in those breaching the exclusion (44). Although the field requires more research in different settings and across different self-exclusion program designs, it may be reasonable to hypothesize that individuals with problem gambling reporting continued gambling despite self-exclusion in the present study may represent a group corresponding to McCormick's and coworkers' description of the group improving partly but to a lesser extent than those not breaching the self-exclusion.…”

“…Gambling despite self-exclusion was relatively common in the group of gamblers reporting self-exclusion. Continued gambling despite self-exclusion has been shown to limit the effects of the intervention (44), and may seem particularly alarming given the severe consequences in an ongoing problematic gambling behavior, such as financial loss and severe mental health symptoms. There are likely no corresponding figures available for comparisons, as the present Spelpaus system involves all licensed gambling in the country, and therefore comparisons to more operator-specific or venue-based selfexclusions practices may be difficult.…”

A systematic review of educational programs and consumer protection measures for gambling: an extension of previous reviews

“…The review identified 26 publications which fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Table 6). Of these, 14 were randomized controlled trials (RCT) (Steenbergh et al 2004;Floyd et al 2006;Cunningham et al 2012 (Nelson et al 2008;Auer and Griffiths 2013, 2015a, 2015bMcCormick et al 2018). A summary of these studies is shown in Table 6 and their characteristics are shown in Supplementary Material 5.…”

Jogo patológico versus transtorno de jogo: o estado de arte

“…Essas estratégias são baseadas em características estruturais (como a taxa de resultados exibidos em máquinas de jogos eletrônicos), modos de entrega (como jogos de azar on-line ou operações terrestres) ou ambientes ou locais em que ocorrem jogos de azar (como como salas de pôquer, bares, casas de apostas ou cassinos, frequentemente chamadas de características situacionais). Tais exemplos, em linha com as diretrizes geradas em Reno (BLASZCZYNSKI; LADOUCEUR; SHAFFER, 2004) (e, portanto, denominado modelo Reno), incluem tempo ou pré-compromissos monetários, autoexclusão voluntária de cassinos (McCormick;Cohen;DAVIES, 2018;NELSON et. al., 2010) e abordagens como GameSense (BRITISH COLUMBIA RESPONSIBLE; PROBLEM GAMBLING PROGRAM, 2014) que fornecem informações aos consumidores sobre como apostar com responsabilidade.…”