Advertisement

Challenges in the Conceptualisation and Measurement of Gambling-Related Harm

  • Paul DelfabbroEmail author
  • Daniel L. King
Review Paper
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

This paper examines the significance of recent developments in research relating to gambling-related harm. Previous research, it is argued, has failed to capture gambling-harm in a way that is useful to inform public policy and regulation. This is because most standardised psychometric measures and the DSM classifications have conflated gambling behaviour and harm and mostly focused on serious harms. As a result, little has generally been known about the prevalence of harm in lower risk gambling groups. Here we summarise the findings from recent harm research, the methodologies used and their conceptual implications. It is argued that strong progress has been made in the categorization and measurement of gambling harm, but that caution must be applied when applying these measures to estimate the ‘burden of disease’ associated with gambling in the community. Particular issues discussed include: the differentiation of opportunity cost and harm; the validity of additive methods involving different severities of measured harm; using comparisons with unfamiliar disorders; and the validity of prevention paradox arguments in this area of research.

Keywords

Gambling harm Quality of life Problem gambling Low risk gambling Disability Opportunity cost 

Notes

Funding

This paper was not supported by any funding. Both Professor Delfabbro and Dr. King’s gambling research is funded entirely consultancy work or grants received from government agencies. Both authors, from time to time, undertake peer reviews for funding bodies such as the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, GambleAware, Alberta Research Institute and other similar bodies.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Neither author reports any conflict of interest in the preparation of this manuscript.

Ethical Statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Abbott, M. W., Binde, P., Hodgins, D., et al. (2013). Conceptual framework of harmful gambling: An international collaboration. Guelph: OPGRC.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, M. W., Williams, M. M., & Volberg, R. A. (2004). A prospective study of problem and regular non-problem gamblers living in the community. Substance Use and Misuse, 39, 855–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Tovim, D., Esterman, A., Tolchard, B., & Battersby, M. (2001). The Victorian Gambling Screen. Report prepared for the Gambling Research Panel, Melbourne, VIC.Google Scholar
  5. Blaszczynski, A., Anjoul, F., Shannon, K., Keen, B., Pickering, D., & Wieczorek, M. (2015). Gambling harm minimisation report. Sydney: Responsible Gambling Fund.Google Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Browne, M., Langham, E., Rawat, V., Greer, N., Li, E., Rose, J., et al. (2016). Assessing gambling-related harm in Victoria: A public health perspective. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Browne, M., Rawat, V., Greer, N., Langham, E., Rockloff, M., & Hanley, C. (2017). What is the harm? Applying a public health methodology to measure the impact of gambling problems and harm on quality of life. Journal of Gambling Issues, 36, 28–50.Google Scholar
  10. Browne, M., & Rockloff, M. (2017). The dangers of conflating gambling-related harm with disordered gambling: Commentary on: Prevention paradox logic and problem gambling (Delfabbro & King 2017). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Browne, M., & Rockloff, M. (2018). Prevalence of gambling-related harm provides evidence for the prevention paradox. Journal of Behavioral Addictions.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.41.Google Scholar
  12. Canale, N., Vieno, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2016). The extent and distribution of gambling-related harms and the prevention paradox in a British population survey. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delfabbro, P. H., & King, D. (2017). Prevention Paradox logic and problem gambling: Does low risk gambling impose a greater burden of harm than high risk gambling? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6, 163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  15. Hancock, L., & Smith, G. (2017). Critiquing the Reno model I–IV international influence on regulators and governments (2004–2015): The distorted reality of “responsible gambling”. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15, 1151–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kessler, R. C., Hwang, I., LaBrie, R., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A., Winters, K. C., et al. (2008). DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey replication. Psychological Medicine, 38, 1351–1360.Google Scholar
  17. Korn, D., & Shaffer, H. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 289–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langham, E., Thorne, H., Browne, M., Donaldson, P., Rose, J., & Rockloff, M. (2016). Understanding gambling related harm: A proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health, 16, 1–23.Google Scholar
  19. Lesieur, H., & Blume, S. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (the SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of problem gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, E., Browne, M., Rawat, V., Langham, E., & Rockloff, M. (2017). Breaking bad: Comparing gambling harms among gamblers and affected others. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33, 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neal, P., Delfabbro, P. H., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Melbourne, VIC: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Canberra: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
  23. Productivity Commssion. (2010). Gambling. Canberra: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
  24. Raisamo, S. U., Makela, P., Salonen, A., & Lintonen, T. (2014). The extent and distribution of gambling harm in Finland as assessed by the Problem Gambling Severity Index. European Journal of Public Health, 25, 716–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rawat, V., Browne, M., Bellringer, M., Greer, N., Kolandai-Matchett, K., Rockloff, M., et al. (2018). A tale of two countries: Comparing disability weights for gambling problems in New Zealand and Australia. Quality of Life Research, 27, 2361–2371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rintoul, A. C., Livingstone, C., Mellor, A., & Jolley, D. (2013). Modelling vulnerability to gambling related harm: How disadvantage predicts gambling losses. Addiction Research & Theory, 21, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rossow, I., & Romelsjo, A. (2006). The extent of the ‘prevention paraox’ in alcohol problems as a function of population drinking patterns. Addiction, 101, 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Svetieva, E., & Walker, M. (2008). Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. (2011). The Victorian Gambling Study: A longitudinal study of gambling and public health. Wave 3 findings. Melbourne: VRGF.Google Scholar
  30. Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. (2012). A longitudinal study of gambling and health in Victoria 2008–2012. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Volberg, R., & Williams, R. J. (2012). Best practices in the population assessment of problem gambling. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, Guelph.Google Scholar
  32. Wardle, H., Reith, G., Best, D., McDaid, D., & Platt, S. (2018). Measuring gambling-related harms: A framework for action. London: GambleAware.Google Scholar
  33. World Health Organisation (WHO). (2018). World Health Organization Charter. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations