Are There Distinctive Outcomes from Self-Exclusion? An Exploratory Study Comparing Gamblers Who Have Self-Excluded, Received Counselling, or Both
- 313 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSelf-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.
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.
- Australasian Gaming Council. (2014). A database on Australia’s gambling industry 2013/14. Melbourne: Australasian Gaming Council.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Gainsbury, S. (2010). Self-exclusion: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A users guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Slough: NFER- Nelson.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Ly, C. (2010). Investigating the use and effectiveness of the Tasmanian Gambling (Self) Exclusion Program. Hobart: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
- Neal, P., Delfabbro, P. H., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Report No. 10. Canberra: AusInfo.Google Scholar
- Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, report no. 50. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
- Reith, G. (2006). Research on the social impacts of gambling. Glasgow: Scottish Executive Social Research.Google Scholar
- Responsible Gambling Council. (2013). What’s the problem with problem gambling? Toronto: Responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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: http://www.easg.org/website/conference.cfm?id=14&cid=14§ion=PRESENTATIONS
- 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