Faculty of Education - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemGambling Participation and Problem Gambling Severity in a Stratified Random Survey: Findings from the Second Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania(SPRINGER, 2015-12)Demographic characteristics associated with gambling participation and problem gambling severity were investigated in a stratified random survey in Tasmania, Australia. Computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted in March 2011 resulting in a representative sample of 4,303 Tasmanian residents aged 18 years or older. Overall, 64.8% of Tasmanian adults reported participating in some form of gambling in the previous 12 months. The most common forms of gambling were lotteries (46.5%), keno (24.3%), instant scratch tickets (24.3%), and electronic gaming machines (20.5%). Gambling severity rates were estimated at non-gambling (34.8%), non-problem gambling (57.4%), low risk gambling (5.3%), moderate risk (1.8%), and problem gambling (.7%). Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole significantly higher annual participation rates were reported by couples with no children, those in full time paid employment, and people who did not complete secondary school. Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole significantly higher gambling frequencies were reported by males, people aged 65 or older, and people who were on pensions or were unable to work. Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole significantly higher gambling expenditure was reported by males. The highest average expenditure was for horse and greyhound racing ($AUD 1,556), double the next highest gambling activity electronic gaming machines ($AUD 767). Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole problem gamblers were significantly younger, in paid employment, reported lower incomes, and were born in Australia. Although gambling participation rates appear to be falling, problem gambling severity rates remain stable. These changes appear to reflect a maturing gambling market and the need for population specific harm minimisation strategies.
-
ItemImproving Gambling Survey Research Using Dual-Frame Sampling of Landline and Mobile Phone Numbers(SPRINGER, 2014-06)Gambling prevalence studies are typically conducted within a single (landline) telephone sampling frame. This practice continues, despite emerging evidence that significant differences exist between landline and mobile (cell) phone only households. This study utilised a dual-frame (landline and mobile) telephone sampling methodology to cast light on the extent of differences across groups of respondents in respect to demographic, health, and gambling characteristics. A total of 2,014 participants from across Australian states and territories ranging in age from 18 to 96 years participated. Interviews were conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing technology where 1,012 respondents from the landline sampling frame and 1,002 from the mobile phone sampling frame completed a questionnaire about gambling and other health behaviours. Responses across the landline sampling frame, the mobile phone sampling frame, and the subset of the mobile phone sampling frame that possessed a mobile phone only (MPO) were contrasted. The findings revealed that although respondents in the landline sample (62.7 %) did not significantly differ from respondents in the mobile phone sample (59.2 %) in gambling participation in the previous 12 months, they were significantly more likely to have gambled in the previous 12 months than the MPO sample (56.4 %). There were no significant differences in internet gambling participation over the previous 12 months in the landline sample (4.7 %), mobile phone sample (4.7 %) and the MPO sample (5.0 %). However, endorsement of lifetime problem gambling on the NODS-CLiP was significantly higher within the mobile sample (10.7 %) and the MPO sample (14.8 %) than the landline sample (6.6 %). Our research supports previous findings that reliance on a traditional landline telephone sampling approach effectively excludes distinct subgroups of the population from being represented in research findings. Consequently, we suggest that research best practice necessitates the use of a dual-frame sampling methodology. Despite inherent logistical and cost issues, this approach needs to become the norm in gambling survey research.
-
ItemPrevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2015-06)OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyse the prevalence of co-morbid psychiatric disorders (DSM-IV Axis I disorders) among treatment-seeking problem gamblers. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for peer-reviewed studies that provided prevalence estimates of Axis I psychiatric disorders in individuals seeking psychological or pharmacological treatment for problem gambling (including pathological gambling). Meta-analytic techniques were performed to estimate the weighted mean effect size and heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Results from 36 studies identified high rates of co-morbid current (74.8%, 95% CI 36.5-93.9) and lifetime (75.5%, 95% CI 46.5-91.8) Axis I disorders. There were high rates of current mood disorders (23.1%, 95% CI 14.9-34.0), alcohol use disorders (21.2%, 95% CI 15.6-28.1), anxiety disorders (17.6%, 95% CI 10.8-27.3) and substance (non-alcohol) use disorders (7.0%, 95% CI 1.7-24.9). Specifically, the highest mean prevalence of current psychiatric disorders was for nicotine dependence (56.4%, 95% CI 35.7-75.2) and major depressive disorder (29.9%, 95% CI 20.5-41.3), with smaller estimates for alcohol abuse (18.2%, 95% CI 13.4-24.2), alcohol dependence (15.2%, 95% CI 10.2-22.0), social phobia (14.9%, 95% CI 2.0-59.8), generalised anxiety disorder (14.4%, 95% CI 3.9-40.8), panic disorder (13.7%, 95% CI 6.7-26.0), post-traumatic stress disorder (12.3%, 95% CI 3.4-35.7), cannabis use disorder (11.5%, 95% CI 4.8-25.0), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (9.3%, 95% CI 4.1-19.6), adjustment disorder (9.2%, 95% CI 4.8-17.2), bipolar disorder (8.8%, 95% CI 4.4-17.1) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (8.2%, 95% CI 3.4-18.6). There were no consistent patterns according to gambling problem severity, type of treatment facility and study jurisdiction. Although these estimates were robust to the inclusion of studies with non-representative sampling biases, they should be interpreted with caution as they were highly variable across studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need for gambling treatment services to undertake routine screening and assessment of psychiatric co-morbidity and provide treatment approaches that adequately manage these co-morbid disorders. Further research is required to explore the reasons for the variability observed in the prevalence estimates.