Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 85–94 | Cite as

Self-Exclusion Program: A Longitudinal Evaluation Study

  • Robert Ladouceur
  • Caroline Sylvain
  • Patrick Gosselin
Original Paper

Abstract

Few self-exclusion programs have been evaluated and their long-term impact remains unknown. This study has two main goals: (1) to assess changes in gambling behaviour and gambling problems for self-excluded patrons, and (2) to follow self-excluded gamblers for a two-year period (during and after the self-exclusion period). Individuals who excluded themselves (N = 161 at the initial stage) participated in telephone interviews after signing the self-exclusion agreement and were followed at 6, 12, 18 and 24-months. Results show that according to the DSM-IV, 73.1% of the participants were pathological gamblers. The self-exclusion program has many positive effects. During the follow-ups, the urge to gamble was significantly reduced while the perception of control increased significantly for all participants. The intensity of negative consequences for gambling was significantly reduced for daily activities, social life, work, and mood. The DSM score was significantly reduced over time. This reduction also took place between the baseline and the 6-month follow-up. The clinical implications of the results are discussed in relation to the effectiveness of the program. Suggestions are provided in order to increase compliance of self-excluded patrons.

Keywords

Pathological gambling Self-Exclusion Evaluation Prevention 

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (APA) (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(4th ed). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  2. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2004). Current Issues. Self-Exclusion: A Gateway to Treatment. Manuscript prepared for the Australian Gaming Council, September.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, P., & Kelly, J. (2002). Problem gambling and self-exclusion: A report to the South African Responsible Gambling Trust. Gaming Law Review, 6, 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hodgins, D. C., Wynne, H., & Makarchuk, K. (1999). Pathways to recovery from gambling problems: Follow-up from a general population survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Giroux, I., Ferland, F., & Leblond, J. (2000). Analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion program. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–307.Google Scholar
  6. Lesieur, H, & Blume, S. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  7. Nathan, P. E. (2003). The role of natural recovery in alcoholism and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. National Gambling Impact Study Commission (1999). Final Report. Washington, Dc: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Nowatzki, N. R., & Williams, R. J. (2002). Casino self-exclusion programmes: A review of the issues. International Gambling Studies, 2, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Petry, N. M. (2005). Pathological Gambling: Etiology, Comorbidity, and Treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  12. Shaffer, H. J., & Hall, M. N. (2001). Updating and refining prevalence estimates of disordered gambling behaviour in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92, 168–172.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Ladouceur
    • 1
  • Caroline Sylvain
    • 1
  • Patrick Gosselin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyLaval University, QuebecQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations