A systematic review of educational programs and consumer protection measures for gambling: an extension of previous reviews

References

• Abbott MW, Binde P, Clark L, Hodgins DC, Johnson MR, Manitowabi D, Quilty L, Spångberg J, Volberg R, Walker D, et al. 2018. Conceptual framework of harmful gambling.
   Google Scholar
• Alderson P. 2004. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ. 328(7438):476–477.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Auer M, Griffiths MD. 2013. Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: an empirical study of gambling behaviour. J Gambl Stud. 29(4):647–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer M, Griffiths MD. 2015a. The use of personalized behavioral feedback for online gamblers: an empirical study. Front Psychol. 6:1406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer M, Griffiths MD. 2015b. Testing normative and self-appraisal feedback in an online slot-machine pop-up in a real-world setting. Front Psychol. 6:339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer M, Griffiths MD. 2016. Personalized behavioral feedback for online gamblers: a real world empirical study. Front Psychol. 7:1875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer M, Malischnig D, Griffiths M. 2014. Is “pop-up” messaging in online slot machine gambling effective as a responsible gambling strategy? J Gambl Issues. 29:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell S, Edwards G, Giesbrecht N, Graham K, Grube J, Hill L, Holder H, Homel R, et al. 2010. Alcohol, no ordinary commodity: research and public policy. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blaszczynski A, Collins P, Fong D, Ladouceur R, Nower L, Shaffer HJ, Tavares H, Venisse JL. 2011. Responsible gambling: general principles and minimal requirements. J Gambl Stud. 27(4):565–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Nower L. 2008. Informed choice and gambling: principles for consumer protection. J Gambl Bus Econ. 2(1):103–118.
   Google Scholar
• Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Shaffer HJ. 2004. A science-based framework for responsible gambling: the Reno model. J Gambl Stud. 20(3):301–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broussard J, Wulfert E. 2017. Can an accelerated gambling simulation reduce persistence on a gambling task? Int J Ment Health Addict. 15(1):143–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caillon J, Grall-Bronnec M, Perrot B, Leboucher J, Donnio Y, Romo L, Challet-Bouju G. 2019. Effectiveness of at-risk gamblers’ temporary self-exclusion from internet gambling sites. J Gambl Stud. 35(2):601–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canale N, Vieno A, Griffiths MD. 2016. The extent and distribution of gambling-related harms and the prevention paradox in a British population survey. J Behav Addict. 5(2):204–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canale N, Vieno A, Griffiths MD, Marino C, Chieco F, Disperati F, Andriolo S, Santinello M. 2016. The efficacy of a web-based gambling intervention program for high school students: a preliminary randomized study. Comput Hum Behav. 55:946–954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celio MA, Lisman SA. 2014. Examining the efficacy of a personalized normative feedback intervention to reduce college student gambling. J Am Coll Health. 62(3):154–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham JA, Hodgins DC, Toneatto T, Murphy M. 2012. A randomized controlled trial of a personalized feedback intervention for problem gamblers. PLoS One. 7(2):e31586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doiron JP, Nicki RM. 2007. Prevention of pathological gambling: a randomized controlled trial. Cogn Behav Ther. 36(2):74–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Donati MA, Primi C, Chiesi F. 2014. Prevention of problematic gambling behavior among adolescents: testing the efficacy of an integrative intervention. J Gambl Stud. 30(4):803–818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowling NA, Cowlishaw S, Jackson AC, Merkouris SS, Francis KL, Christensen DR. 2015. Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 49(6):519–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floyd K, Whelan JP, Meyers AW. 2006. Use of warning messages to modify gambling beliefs and behavior in a laboratory investigation. Psychol Addict Behav. 20(1):69–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsström D, Hesser H, Carlbring P. 2016. Usage of a responsible gambling tool: a descriptive analysis and latent class analysis of user behavior. J Gambl Stud. 32(3):889–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsström D, Jansson-Fröjmark M, Hesser H, Carlbring P. 2017. Experiences of Playscan: interviews with users of a responsible gambling tool. Internet Intervent. 8:53–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forsström D, Rafi J, Carlbring P. 2020. Drop outs usage of a responsible gambling tool and subsequent gambling patterns. Cogent Psychol. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1715535
   Google Scholar
• Ginley MK, Whelan JP, Keating HA, Meyers AW. 2016. Gambling warning messages: the impact of winning and losing on message reception across a gambling session. Psychol Addict Behav. 30(8):931–938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann H. 2008. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 336(7650):924–926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, Devereaux P.J, Montori V M, Freyschuss B, Vist G, et al. 2011. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence–imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 64(12):1283–1293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock L, Smith G. 2017a. Replacing the Reno model with a robust public health approach to “responsible gambling”: Hancock and Smith’s response to commentaries on our original Reno model critique. Int J Ment Health Addict. 15(6):1209–1220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock L, Smith G. 2017b. Critiquing the Reno Model I-IV international influence on regulators and governments (2004–2015)—the distorted reality of “responsible gambling. Int J Ment Health Addict. 15(6):1151–1176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, Reeves B, Eldridge S. 2016. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Syst Rev. 10(1):29–31.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanova E, Rafi J, Lindner P, Carlbring P. 2019. Experiences of responsible gambling tools among non-problem gamblers: a survey of active customers of an online gambling platform. Addict Behav Rep. 9:100161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jardin B, Wulfert E. 2009. The use of messages in altering risky gambling behavior college students: an experimental analogue study. Am J Addict. 18(3):243–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jardin BF, Wulfert E. 2012. The use of messages in altering risky gambling behavior in experienced gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav. 26(1):166–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsson J, Hodgins DC, Munck I, Carlbring P. 2019. Reaching out to big losers: a randomized controlled trial of brief motivational contact providing gambling expenditure feedback. Psychol Addictiv Behav. 33(3):179–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keen B, Blaszczynski A, Anjoul F. 2017. Systematic review of empirically evaluated school-based gambling education programs. J Gambl Stud. 33(1):301–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HS, Wohl MJA, Stewart MJ, Sztainert T, Gainsbury SM. 2014. Limit your time, gamble responsibly: setting a time limit (via pop-up message) on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device. Int Gambl Stud. 14(2):266–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotter R, Kraplin A, Buhringer G. 2018. Casino self- and forced excluders’ gambling behavior before and after exclusion. J Gambl Stud. 34(2):597–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuritz SJ, Landis JR, Koch GG. 1988. A general overview of Mantel-Haenszel methods: applications and recent developments. Annu Rev Public Health. 9(1):123–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ladouceur R, Ferland F, Vitaro F, Pelletier O. 2005. Modifying youths’ perception toward pathological gamblers. Addict Behav. 30(2):351–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladouceur R, Goulet A, Vitaro F. 2013. Prevention programmes for youth gambling: a review of the empirical evidence. Int Gambl Stud. 13(2):141–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladouceur R, Shaffer P, Blaszczynski A, Shaffer HJ. 2017. Responsible gambling: a synthesis of the empirical evidence. Addict Res Theory. 25(3):225–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladouceur R, Sylvain C, Gosselin P. 2007. Self-exclusion program: a longitudinal evaluation study. J Gambl Stud. 23(1):85–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langham E, Thorne H, Browne M, Donaldson P, Rose J, Rockloff M. 2015. Understanding gambling related harm: a proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health. 16(1):80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux P. J, Kleijnen J, Moher D. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 6(7):e1000100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorains FK, Cowlishaw S, Thomas SA. 2011. Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addict. 106(3):490–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupu IR, Lupu V. 2013. Gambling prevention program for teenagers. J Cognit Behav Psychother. 13(2):575–584.
   Google Scholar
• Marchica L, Derevensky JL. 2016. Examining personalized feedback interventions for gambling disorders: a systematic review. J Behav Addict. 5(1):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martens MP, Arterberry BJ, Takamatsu SK, Masters J, Dude K. 2015. The efficacy of a personalized feedback-only intervention for at-risk college gamblers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 83(3):494–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick AV, Cohen IM, Davies G. 2018. Differential effects of formal and informal gambling on symptoms of problem gambling during voluntary self-exclusion. J Gambl Stud. 34(3):1013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMahon N, Thomson K, Kaner E, Bambra C. 2019. Effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours and gambling related harm: an umbrella review. Addict Behav. 90:380–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merkouris SS, Thomas AC, Shandley KA, Rodda SN, Oldenhof E, Dowling NA. 2016. An update on gender differences in the characteristics associated with problem gambling: a systematic review. Curr Addict Rep. 3(3):254–267.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer G, Kalke J, Hayer T. 2018. The impact of supply reduction on the prevalence of gambling participation and disordered gambling behavior: a systematic review. Sucht. 64(5–6):283–293.
   Google Scholar
• Motka F, Gruene B, Sleczka P, Braun B, Örnberg JC, Kraus L. 2018. Who uses self-exclusion to regulate problem gambling? A systematic literature review. J Behav Addict. 7(4):903–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. 2008. Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies.
   Google Scholar
• Neighbors C, Rodriguez LM, Rinker DV, Gonzales RG, Agana M, Tackett JL, Foster DW. 2015. Efficacy of personalized normative feedback as a brief intervention for college student gambling: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 83(3):500–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SE, Kleschinsky JH, LaBrie RA, Kaplan S, Shaffer HJ. 2010. One decade of self exclusion: Missouri casino self-excluders four to ten years after enrollment. J Gambl Stud. 26(1):129–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SE, LaPlante DA, Peller AJ, Schumann A, LaBrie RA, Shaffer HJ. 2008. Real limits in the virtual world: self-limiting behavior of internet gamblers. J Gambl Stud. 24(4):463–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh BC, Ong YJ, Loo JM. 2017. A review of educational-based gambling prevention programs for adolescents. Asian J Gambl Issues Public Health. 7(1):4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raisamo SU, Mäkelä P, Salonen AH, Lintonen TP. 2015. The extent and distribution of gambling harm in Finland as assessed by the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Eur J Public Health. 25(4):716–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. 2015. Version 5.3. Copenhagen (Denmark): The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration.
   Google Scholar
• Rockloff MJ, Donaldson P, Browne M. 2015. Jackpot expiry: an experimental investigation of a new EGM player-protection feature. J Gambl Stud. 31(4):1505–1514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romild U, Svensson J, Volberg R. 2016. A gender perspective on gambling clusters in Sweden using longitudinal data. Nordic Stud Alcohol Drugs. 33(1):43–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe L, Walker M, Coughlan MJ, Enersen K, Blaszczynski A. 2005. Structural changes to electronic gaming machines as effective harm minimization strategies for non-problem and problem gamblers. J Gambl Stud. 21(4):503–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergh TA, Whelan JP, Meyers AW, May RK, Floyd K. 2004. Impact of warning and brief intervention messages on knowledge of gambling risk, irrational beliefs and behaviour. Int Gambl Stud. 4(1):3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Sterne J A, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al. 2016. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 355:i4919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart MJ, Wohl MJ. 2013. Pop-up messages, dissociation, and craving: how monetary limit reminders facilitate adherence in a session of slot machine gambling. Psychol Addict Behav. 27(1):268–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St-Pierre RA, Derevensky JL, Temcheff CE, Gupta R, Martin-Story A. 2017. Evaluation of a school-based gambling prevention program for adolescents: efficacy of using the theory of planned behaviour. J Gambl Issues. 36:113–137.
   Google Scholar
• Turner N, Macdonald J, Bartoshuk M, Zangeneh M. 2008. The evaluation of a 1-h prevention program for problem gambling. Int J Ment Health Addict. 6(2):238–243.
   Google Scholar
• Turner NE, Macdonald J, Somerset M. 2008. Life skills, mathematical reasoning and critical thinking: a curriculum for the prevention of problem gambling. J Gambl Stud. 24(3):367–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker M, Toneatto T, Potenza MN, Petry N, Ladouceur R, Hodgins DC, el-Guebaly N, Echeburua E, Blaszczynski A. 2006. A framework for reporting outcomes in problem gambling treatment research: The Banff, Alberta Consensus. Addict. 101(4):504–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams RJ, Connolly D. 2006. Does learning about the mathematics of gambling change gambling behavior? Psychol Addict Behav. 20(1):62–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams RJ, West BL, Simpson RI. 2012. Prevention of problem gambling: a comprehensive review of the evidence and identified best practices. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
   Google Scholar
• Williams RJ, Wood RT, Currie SR. 2010. Stacked Deck: an effective, school-based program for the prevention of problem gambling. J Primary Prevent. 31(3):109–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohl MJ, Christie KL, Matheson K, Anisman H. 2010. Animation-based education as a gambling prevention tool: correcting erroneous cognitions and reducing the frequency of exceeding limits among slots players. J Gambl Stud. 26(3):469–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohl MJA, Parush A, Kim HS, Warren K. 2014. Building it better: applying human–computer interaction and persuasive system design principles to a monetary limit tool improves responsible gambling. Comput Hum Behav. 37:124–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood RTA, Wohl M. 2015. Assessing the effectiveness of a responsible gambling behavioural feedback tool for reducing the gambling expenditure of at-risk players. Int Gambl Stud. 15(2):1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar