A Process Evaluation of a Self-Exclusion Program: A Qualitative Investigation from the Perspective of Excluders and Non-Excluders

  • Nerilee Hing
  • Barry Tolchard
  • Elaine Nuske
  • Louise Holdsworth
  • Margaret Tiyce
Article

Abstract

This paper draws on a process evaluation of Queensland’ self-exclusion program to examine how people use the program, motivations for self-excluding, barriers to use, experiences and perceptions of program elements, and potential improvements. Detailed, reflective, first-person accounts were gathered through interviews with 103 problem gamblers, including excluders and non-excluders. Identified strengths include the program’s widespread availability. Many self-excluders reported positive experiences with responsive, knowledgeable, respectful venue staff. Major weaknesses include low publicity, limited privacy and confidentiality, the need to exclude individually from venues, and deficiencies in venue monitoring for breaches, which hinder the program’s capacity to meet harm minimisation objectives. While the program reaches some problem gamblers, others are delayed or deterred from self-excluding by low awareness, shame and embarrassment, difficulties of excluding from multiple venues, and low confidence in venue staff to maintain confidentiality and provide effective monitoring. Potential improvements include wider publicity, off-site multi-venue exclusion, and technology-assisted monitoring.

Keywords

Self-exclusion Process evaluation Motivators Barriers Qualitative Australia 

References

  1. Australasian Gaming Council. (2012). Database on Australia’s gambling industries 2011–12. Melbourne: AGC.Google Scholar
  2. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2007). Self-exclusion: a proposed gateway to treatment model. International Gambling Studies, 7(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Croucher, J. S., Croucher, R. F., & Leslie, J. R. (2006). Report of the pilot study on the self-exclusion program conducted by GameChange (NSW). Sydney: GameChange.Google Scholar
  6. Delfabbro, P. H. (2012). Australasian gambling review (5th ed.). Adelaide: IGA.Google Scholar
  7. Dunt, D., Robinson, J., Selvarajah, S., & Pirkis, J. (2009). An independent evaluation report. Melbourne: Beyondblue, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  8. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  9. Gainsbury, S. (2010). Self-exclusion: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Guelph: OPGRC.Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  11. Guest, G. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, M. J. (2010). Evaluating public and community health programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Hawe, P., Degeling, D., & Hall, J. (1990). Evaluating health promotion: A health worker’s guide. Artarmon: MacLennan & Petty.Google Scholar
  14. Hing, N., & Nuske, E. (2009). Assisting problem gamblers in the gaming venue. Brisbane: QOGR.Google Scholar
  15. Hing, N., & Nuske, E. (2011). Assisting problem gamblers in the gaming venue: an assessment of practices and procedures followed by frontline hospitality staff. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hing, N., & Nuske, E. (2012). The self-exclusion experience for problem gamblers in South Australia. Australian Social Work, 64(4), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hing, N., Nisbet, S., & Nuske, E. (2010). Assisting problem gamblers in South Australian gaming venues. Adelaide: IGA.Google Scholar
  18. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., & Gosselin, P. (2007). Self-exclusion program: a longitudinal evaluation study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 85–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M. L. T., & Riemer, F. J. (2012). Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and design. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, N. (2009). From discrimination to social inclusion: A review of the literature on anti-stigma initiatives in mental health. Brisbane: Queensland Alliance.Google Scholar
  21. Nelson, S. E., Kleschinsky, J. H., LaBrie, R. A., Kaplan, S., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). One decade of self exclusion: Missouri casino self-excluders four to ten years after enrolment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 129–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Nowatzki, N., & Williams, R. J. (2002). Casino self-exclusion programmes: a review of the issues. International Gambling Studies, 2, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Neil, M., Whetton, S., Dolman, B., Herbert, M., Giannopolous, V., O’Neil, D., & Wordley, J. (2003). Part A—Evaluation of self-exclusion programs in Victoria and Part B—Summary of self-exclusion programs in Australian States and Territories. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
  25. Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation. (2012). Queensland responsible gambling code of practice: Version 4. Brisbane: OLGR.Google Scholar
  26. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling. Canberra: Productivity Commission. Report no. 50.Google Scholar
  27. Research and Statistics Unit. (2011). Report on gambling related exclusions in Queensland. Brisbane: RSU.Google Scholar
  28. Responsible Gambling Council. (2008). From enforcement to assistance: Evolving best practices in self exclusion. Toronto: Responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Guelph: OPGRC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nerilee Hing
    • 1
  • Barry Tolchard
    • 2
  • Elaine Nuske
    • 1
  • Louise Holdsworth
    • 1
  • Margaret Tiyce
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Gambling Education and Research, School of Tourism and Hospitality ManagementSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  2. 2.School of HealthUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations