Qualitative Experience of Self-Exclusion Programs: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Gambling disorder is a major public health issue in many countries. It has been defined as a persistent, recurrent pattern of gambling and is associated with substantial distress or impairment, lower quality of life, and living with a plurality of psychiatric problems. Many people suffering from gambling disorder seek help in ways other than formal treatment seeking, including self-management strategies. One example of responsible gambling tools that has gained popularity in recent years is self-exclusion programs. Self-exclusion entails individuals barring themselves from a gambling venue or a virtual platform. The aim of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on this topic and to explore participants’ perceptions and experiences with self-exclusion. An electronic literature search was conducted on 16th May 2022 in the following databases: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Education Source, ERIC, MEDLINE with Full Text, APA PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, APA PsychInfo, Social Work Abstracts, and SocINDEX. The search yielded a total of 236 articles, of which 109 remained after duplicates were removed. After full-text reading, six articles were included in this review. The available literature shows that although there are many barriers and limitations to the current self-exclusion programs, self-exclusion is generally viewed as an effective responsible gambling strategy. There is a clear need to improve the current programs by increasing awareness, publicity, availability, staff training, off-site venue exclusion, and technology-assisted monitoring, as well as by adopting more holistic management approaches to gambling disorders in general.

Strengthening oversight and integrity: The multi‐faceted role of centralized player tracking systems in gambling

“…In addition to the various citations provided in their article [2], a scoping review highlights the desire among people who gamble for a streamlined process to self‐exclude from multiple venues simultaneously. Unless addressed, the administrative burden may serve as a negative nudge, inadvertently enabling the circumvention of self‐imposed limits [3].…”