Gambling Participation and Problem Gambling Severity among Rural and Peri-Urban Poor South African Adults in KwaZulu-Natal
- 266 Downloads
Poor South Africans are significantly poorer and have lower employment rates than the subjects of most published research on gambling prevalence and problem gambling. Some existing work suggests relationships between gambling activity (including severity of risk for problem gambling), income, employment status and casino proximity. The objective of the study reported here is to establish the prevalence of gambling, including at risk and pathological gambling, and the profile of gambling activities in two samples of poor South African adults living in a rural and a peri-urban community. A total of 300 (150 male, 150 female) adults in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa in communities selected using census data, completed the Problem Gambling Severity Index and a survey of socioeconomic and household information, and of gambling knowledge and activity. It was found that gambling was common, and—except for lottery participation—mostly informal or unlicensed. Significant differences between rural and peri-urban populations were found. Peri-urban subjects were slightly less poor, and gambled more and on a different and wider range of activities. Problem and at risk gamblers were disproportionately represented among the more urbanised. Casino proximity appeared largely irrelevant to gambling activity.
KeywordsGambling Problem gambling Gambling participation South Africa Poverty Income Employment Casino proximity
This research was funded by the South African Responsible Gambling Trust, through the National Responsible Gambling Programme of South Africa, Executive Director Peter Collins. We thank the following people who contributed background research in the development of the survey instrument: Graeme Barr, Peter Collins, Harold Kincaid, Jacques Rousseau and Rudy E. Vuchinich.
All procedures and measures were approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Participants gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1992). Frequent gamblers and problem gamblers in New Zealand. Reseearch series No 14. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
- Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2000). Taking the pulse on gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand: A report on phase one of the 1999 national prevalence survey. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
- American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
- Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of Pathological Gambling, National Research Council. (1999). “Front Matter.” Pathological gambling: a critical review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Cox, B., Yu, N., Afifi, T., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). A national survey of gambling problems in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 4, 213–217.Google Scholar
- Davidson, T., & Rodgers, B. (2010). 2009 Survey of the nature and extent of gambling, and problem gambling, in the Australian Capital Territory. Report for the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Delfabbro, P. H. (1998). The psychology of gambling in South Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Gambling Review Body, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2001). Gambling review report. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
- Gerstein, D. R., Volberg, R. A., Toce, M. T., Harwood, H., Palmer, A., et al. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Grant, J. E., Kim, S. W., Odlaug, B. L., Buchanan, S. N., & Potenza, M. N. (2009). Late-onset pathological gambling: clinical correlates and gender differences. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(4), 380–387.Google Scholar
- Home Affairs Bureau. (2005). Study on Hong Kong people’s participation in gambling activities. Hong Kong: Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong. Study commissioned by Home Affairs Bureau, Government of Hong Kong, SAR, China.Google Scholar
- Ka-Chio Fong, D., & Ozorio, B. (2005). Gambling participation and prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in a far-east city: Macao. UNLV Gaming Research Review Journal, 9(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
- Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1184–1188.Google Scholar
- Lund, I., & Nordlund, S. (2003). Pengespill og pengeproblemer i Norge (Rapport nr. 2/2000). Oslo: Statens institutt for rusmiddelforsning.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. (2003). British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study. Victoria, BC: Ipsos-Reid & Gemini Research. Study commissioned by Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Government of British Colombia, BC Canada.Google Scholar
- Olasun, D. T., Finnbogadottir, H., Hauksdottir, A., & Barudottir, S. K. (2003). An Icelandic version of the problem gambling severity index: A psychometric evaluation. In Paper presented at the 27th nordic psychiatric congress, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
- Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries, Report No. 10. AusInfo, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Ross, D., Collins, P., Dellis, A., Hofmeyr, A., & Kincaid, et al. (2010). Summary of basic data on the national urban prevalence study on gambling behaviour. National Responsible Gambling Programme (South Africa).Google Scholar
- School for Social and Policy Research & School of Health Sciences. (2006). Northern territory gambling prevalence survey 2005. Darwin: Charles Darwin University.Google Scholar
- Shaffer, H. J., & Hall, M. N. (2001). Updating and refining meta-analytic prevalence estimates of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92(3), 168–172.Google Scholar
- Sharp, C., Steinberg, L., Yaroslavsky, I., Hofmeyr, A., Dellis, A., & Ross, D., Kincaid H. (2011). An item response theory analysis of the problem gambling severity index. Assessment. (August 19, Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
- Sproston, K., Erens, B., & Orford, J. (2000). Gambling behaviour in Britain: Results from the British gambling prevalence survey. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
- Statistics South Africa. (2008). Income and expenditure of households 2005/2006. Pretoria: Analysis of Results.Google Scholar
- Statistics South Africa. (2010). Key indicators: http://www.statssa.gov.za/keyindicators/keyindicators.asp. Accessed December 7, 2010.
- United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human development report 2010. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Volberg, R. A., Nysse-Carris, K. L., & Gerstein, D. R. (2006). 2006 California problem gambling prevalence survey. Final report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and drug Problems, Office of Problem and Pathological Gambling. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
- Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., & Griffiths, M., et al. (2007). British gambling prevalence survey 2007. National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
- Wildman, R. W. II. (1998). Gambling: An attempt at an integration. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Wynne Resources.Google Scholar
- World Bank. (2009). Africa development indicators 2008/2009. Washington.Google Scholar