A Composite Measure of Gambling Exposure: Availability, Accessibility or Both?
- PDF / 732,285 Bytes
- 20 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 94 Downloads / 158 Views
A Composite Measure of Gambling Exposure: Availability, Accessibility or Both? S. M. Ofori Dei1 · D. R. Christensen1,4 · O. A. Awosoga1 · B. K. Lee1 · A. C. Jackson2,3,4,5 Accepted: 3 October 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Measures of availability and accessibility are often used separately or interchangeably to assess gambling exposure. This study examined the advantages of assessing gambling exposure using availability, accessibility, and a composite measure. Logistic and poisson regression analyses were used to determine the relative importance of these measures in predicting problem gambling using data from the 2008 and 2009 Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling in Alberta (SEIGA) surveys. The composite measure of gambling exposure predicted both the risk and severity of problem gambling better than the availability or accessibility measures alone. These results demonstrate that individual differences in problem gambling are better predicted by a composite measure of exposure. Keywords Gambling availability · Gambling accessibility · Composite exposure measure · Problem gambling · Alberta
Introduction Exposure to gambling is a well documented risk factor for problem gambling (St-Pierre et al. 2014; Storer et al. 2009; Vasiliadis et al. 2013; Ofori-Dei et al. 2020). Exposure has been assessed in many ways in the literature. Some researchers have assessed exposure by the number of gambling venues and/or the number of machines available (Abbott 2006; St-Pierre et al. 2014; Storer et al. 2009; Vasiliadis et al. 2013). Others have assessed the distance between residences and the nearest gambling venue (Abbott 2006; St-Pierre et al.
* D. R. Christensen [email protected] 1
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada
2
Australian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Australia
3
Faculty of Health, Deakin University, North Melbourne, Australia
4
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
5
Centre on Behavioral Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Gambling Studies
2014; Storer et al. 2009; Vasiliadis et al. 2013). The aim of this study was to assess availability, accessibility, and a composite measure of gambling exposure. Although internet gambling has increased gambling availability, terrestrial gambling has the highest number of gambling patrons. Between 1 and 13% of gambling occurs online (Canale, Griffiths et al. 2016; Gainsbury et al. 2015), compared to 80% for terrestrial gambling (Abbott et al. 2004; Gainsbury et al. 2014; Mason 2008; Wardle et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2012). Terrestrial availability measures of exposure such as the number of gambling venues and the number of machines per venue have been found to predict problem gambling in the general population. In Australia and New Zealand, a meta-analysis found that problem gambling rates increased by an average of 8%
Data Loading...
