Are There Distinctive Outcomes from Self-Exclusion? An Exploratory Study Comparing Gamblers Who Have Self-Excluded, Received Counselling, or Both

  • Nerilee Hing
  • Alex Russell
  • Barry Tolchard
  • Elaine Nuske


Research has not determined whether typical improvements in psychosocial functioning following self-exclusion are due to the intervention. This study aimed to explore distinctive outcomes from self-exclusion by assessing outcomes between 1) self-excluders who had and had not received gambling counselling and 2) self-excluders compared to non-self-excluders who had received gambling counselling. A longitudinal design administered three assessments on gambling behaviour, problem gambling severity, gambling urge, alcoholism, general health, and harmful consequences. Of the 86 participants at Time 1 with similar baseline scores, 59.3 % completed all assessments. By Time 2, all groups (self-excluded only, self-excluded plus counselling, counselling only) had vastly improved on most outcome measures. Improvements were sustained at Time 3. Outcomes did not differ for self-exclusion combined with counselling. Compared to non-excluders, more self-excluders abstained from most problematic gambling form and fewer had harmful consequences. Findings suggest self-exclusion may have similar short-term outcomes to counselling alone and may reduce harm in the short-term.


Self-exclusion Problem gambling Counselling Outcomes Longitudinal 



This research was funded by a Responsible Gambling Research Grant from the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General. Our appreciation is extended to the participants for their important and valuable involvement.

Conflict of Interest

The first and second authors have received funding support and provided consultancies to organisations directly and indirectly benefiting from gambling, including Australian governments and industry operators.

The third author has received funding support from state governments which was derived from industry sources.

The fourth author has received funding support from state governments which was derived from industry sources.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.


  1. Australasian Gaming Council. (2014). A database on Australia’s gambling industry 2013/14. Melbourne: Australasian Gaming Council.Google Scholar
  2. Battersby, M., Pols, R., Oakes, J., Smith, D., McLaughlin, K., & Baigent, M. (2010). Definition and predictors of relapse in problem gambling. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Bellringer, M., Coombes, R., Pulford, J., & Abbott, M. (2010). Formative investigation into the effectiveness of gambling venue exclusion processes in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  4. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: the Reno Model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2007). Self-exclusion: a proposed gateway to the treatment model. International Gambling Studies, 7(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, I. M., McCormick, A. V., & Corrado, R. R. (2011). BCLC’s voluntary self-exclusion program: Perceptions and experiences of a sample of program participants. Vancouver: BC Centre for Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 252(14), 1905–1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  10. Gainsbury, S. (2010). Self-exclusion: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
  11. Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A users guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Slough: NFER- Nelson.Google Scholar
  12. Grant Kalischuk, R. G. (2010). Co-creating life pathways: problem gambling and its impact on families. The Family Journal, 18(1), 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2011a). Self-exclusion as a harm minimization strategy: evidence for the casino sector from selected European countries. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, 685–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2011b). Internet self-exclusion: characteristics of self-excluded gamblers and preliminary evidence for its effectiveness. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9(3), 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hing, N., & Nuske, E. (2009). Assisting problem gamblers in the gaming venue: An assessment of responses provided by frontline staff, customer liaison officers and gambling support services to problem gamblers in the venue. Brisbane: Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation.Google 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. Hodgins, D. C., & el-Guebaly, N. (2004). Retrospective and prospective reports of precipitants to relapse in pathological gambling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(1), 72–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holdsworth, L., Nuske, E., Tiyce, M., & Hing, N. (2013). Impacts of gambling problems on partners: Partners’ interpretations. Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health, 3(11). doi: 10.1186/2195-3007-3-11.
  19. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Giroux, I., Ferland, F., & Leblond, J. (2000). Brief communications: analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion program. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(4), 453–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., & Gosselin, P. (2007). Self-exclusion program: a longitudinal evaluation study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 85–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ly, C. (2010). Investigating the use and effectiveness of the Tasmanian Gambling (Self) Exclusion Program. Hobart: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  22. Neal, P., Delfabbro, P. H., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Nowatzki, N., & Williams, R. J. (2002). Casino self-exclusion programmes: a review of the issues. International Gambling Studies, 2, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2008). Recovery in pathological gambling: an imprecise concept. Substance Use and Misuse, 43(12–13), 1844–1864.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Pallesen, S., Mitsem, M., Kvale, G., Johnsen, B. H., & Molde, H. (2005). Outcome of psychological treatments of pathological gambling: a review and meta-analysis. Addiction, 100(10), 1412–1422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patford, J. L. (2008). For poorer: how men experience, understand and respond to problematic aspects of a partner’s gambling. Gambling Research, 19(1 & 2), 7–20.Google Scholar
  29. Patford, J. L. (2009). For worse, for poorer and in ill health: how women experience, understand and respond to a partner’s gambling problems. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Report No. 10. Canberra: AusInfo.Google Scholar
  31. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, report no. 50. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  32. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. (2004). The Gambling Urge Scale: development, confirmatory factor validation, and psychometric properties. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(2), 100–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reith, G. (2006). Research on the social impacts of gambling. Glasgow: Scottish Executive Social Research.Google Scholar
  34. Responsible Gambling Council. (2013). What’s the problem with problem gambling? Toronto: Responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar
  35. Sibbald, B., & Roland, M. (1998). Understanding controlled trials. Why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ [British Medical Journal], 316(7126), 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steinberg, M.A. (2008). Ongoing evaluation of a self-exclusion program. Paper presented at the 22nd National Conference on Problem Gambling, Long Beach, California, 26–28 June.Google Scholar
  37. Townshend, P. (2007). Self-exclusion in a public health environment: an effective treatment option in New Zealand. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 5, 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tremblay, N., Boutin, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2008). Improved self-exclusion program: preliminary results. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(4), 505–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verlik, K. (2008). Casino and racing entertainment centre voluntary self-exclusion program evaluation. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Gambling Studies and Policy Issues, Nova Gorica, Slovenia, July 1–4, 2008. Retrieved 18 August 2011, from:
  40. Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence and identified best practices. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nerilee Hing
    • 1
  • Alex Russell
    • 2
  • Barry Tolchard
    • 3
  • Elaine Nuske
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Gambling Education and ResearchSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Gambling Education and ResearchSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  3. 3.School of HealthUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  4. 4.Centre for Gambling Education and ResearchSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia

Personalised recommendations