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

Haeusler, Joachim

doi:10.1080/14459795.2016.1158306

Cited by 35 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 53 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%

“…Qualitative studies most often lacked in describing verification procedures to establish credibility/trustworthiness of the study and in outlining the reflexivity within interpretation processes. Of the 16 included studies, 12 examined self-excluders who self-excluded from terrestrial venues (Hayer & Meyer, 2011b; Hing & Nuske, 2012; Hing, Nuske, et al., 2015; Hing, Russell, Tolchard, et al., 2015; Hing et al., 2014; LaBrie et al., 2007; Ladouceur et al., 2000, 2007; Nelson et al., 2010; Nower & Blaszczynski, 2006, 2008; Tremblay et al., 2008), while four studies examined self-excluders who self-excluded from online gambling websites (Dragicevic et al., 2015; Haefeli et al., 2015; Haeusler, 2016; Hayer & Meyer, 2011a). None of the qualitative studies examined online self-excluders.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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%

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

“…This provides face validity for Playscan's assessment. Previous studies ( Adami et al, 2013 , Braverman and Shaffer, 2012 , Dragicevic et al, 2011 , Haeusler, 2016 , Percy et al, 2016 , Philander, 2013 ) have examined different types of gambling patterns and how they relate to risk or self-exclusion. The studies validated that gambling data can be used to identify high risk behaviour and to identify self-excluders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…Interestingly, use of eWallets, as well as use of other anonymized payment methods may be protective. 123 Research has found that those using eWallets and prepaid credit cards are less likely to self-exclude, suggesting that use of these payment methods could reduce gambling harm. A possible reason for this is that these payment methods could facilitate a process similar to pre-commitment, wherein the gambler funds the eWallet or prepaid credit card with a preset amount they are willing to lose.…”

Section: Unintended Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A possible reason for this is that these payment methods could facilitate a process similar to pre-commitment, wherein the gambler funds the eWallet or prepaid credit card with a preset amount they are willing to lose. 123 Therefore, it is unclear if the use of eWallets as an unintended consequence will be harmful or beneficial, which highlights the need for robust evaluation.…”

Section: Unintended Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of credit cards in gambling

Sztainert¹,

Greo²,

Baxter³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Commission opened a call for evidence on gambling with credit cards in February 2019 to consider the issue further. In August 2019, a public consultation followed to explore the options of either 1) banning the use of credit cards for gambling entirely (including online betting, casinos, bingo, lottery, and bookmakers), or 2) introducing limits and restrictions on the use of credit cards. This report provides the best available evidence on the effectiveness and considerations of implementing a ban or restriction on credit card use to gamble. It will be used to inform an evaluation plan that will measure the impact of the regulatory intervention. This report consists of two independent activities. Section 1 is a review of data on credit card use supplied by the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) and the Gambling Commission. Specifically, this data was investigated to provide insights and context around the current use of credit cards for gambling in the United Kingdom.

show abstract

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

Cited by 35 publications

References 53 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

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

The role of credit cards in gambling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About