DOCSLIB.ORG

THE POPULATION PREVALENCE of PROBLEM GAMBLING: Methodological Influences, Standardized Rates, Jurisdictional Differences, and Worldwide Trends

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE POPULATION PREVALENCE of PROBLEM GAMBLING: Methodological Influences, Standardized Rates, Jurisdictional Differences, and Worldwide Trends 1 30024Ca1.2BelB2012 THE POPULATION PREVALENCE OF PROBLEM GAMBLING: Methodological Influences, Standardized Rates, Jurisdictional Differences, and Worldwide Trends Robert J. Williams, Ph.D. Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, and Coordinator, Alberta Gambling Research Institute University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada Rachel A. Volberg, Ph.D. President, Gemini Research Northampton, Massachusetts, United States Rhys M.G. Stevens, M.L.I.S. Librarian, Alberta Gambling Research Institute University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ONTARIO PROBLEM GAMBLING RESEARCH CENTRE & THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG TERM CARE May 8 2012 2 Citation Williams, R.J., Volberg, R.A. & Stevens, R.M.G. (2012). The Population Prevalence of Problem Gambling: Methodological Influences, Standardized Rates, Jurisdictional Differences, and Worldwide Trends. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. May 8, 2012. Contact Information Dr. Robert J. Williams Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences & Research Coordinator, Alberta Gambling Research Institute 3017 Markin Hall University of Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4 403-382-7128 [email protected] Dr. Rachel Volberg President, Gemini Research PO Box 1390 Northampton, Massachusetts, United States 01061-1390 413-584-4667 [email protected] Rhys M.G. Stevens Librarian, Alberta Gambling Research Institute University of Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4 403-329-5176 [email protected] Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the anonymous external reviewers as well as Beverly West (Research Associate, University of Lethbridge) for their very helpful critiques of earlier versions of this document. Lauren Williams was also very helpful in collecting some of the data. 3 SUMMARY 5 INTRODUCTION 8 IDENTIFICATION AND COLLECTION OF ALL EXISTING PREVALENCE STUDIES 10 METHODOLOGICAL IMPACTS ON PROBLEM GAMBLING PREVALENCE RATES 13 Instrument and Scoring Thresholds used to Assess Problem Gambling 13 Time Frame used to Assess the Presence of Problem Gambling 22 Method of Survey Administration 29 How the Survey is Described to Potential Participants 33 Threshold used to Administer Questions about Problem Gambling 35 STANDARDIZED PROBLEM GAMBLING PREVALENCE RATES 36 DIFFERENCES IN STANDARDIZED PROBLEM GAMBLING PREVALENCE RATES BETWEEN 41 JURISDICTIONS National (Between Country) Differences 41 Australian State/Territorial Differences 42 Canadian Provincial Differences 42 U.S. State/Territorial Differences 42 CHANGES IN STANDARDIZED PROBLEM GAMBLING PREVALENCE RATES WITHIN 43 JURISDICTIONS OVER TIME Framing the Issue 43 Casino Employees 44 Proximity to Gambling Opportunities 45 Replication Studies 47 National Differences 52 Australian State/Territorial Differences 52 Canadian Provincial Differences 52 U.S. State/Territorial Differences 53 Summary of Changes Within Jurisdictions over Time 53 4 REFERENCES 57 APPENDICES 63 A. National Adult Prevalence Studies of Problem Gambling 63 B. Australian State/Territorial Adult Prevalence Studies of Problem Gambling 131 C. Canadian Provincial Adult Prevalence Studies of Problem Gambling 158 D. United States State/Territorial Adult Prevalence Studies of Problem Gambling 198 E. Demographic Correlates of Problem Gambling 265 F. Characterological and Environmental Correlates of Problem Gambling 267 G. Gambling Format Correlates of Problem Gambling 268 H. Problem and Pathological Gambling Measure (PPGM) 269 5 SUMMARY The primary purpose of the present research was to standardize problem gambling prevalence rates so as to facilitate comparisons between jurisdictions as well as within the same jurisdiction over time. The first step in this process was the identification and collection of all published and unpublished studies that involve a jurisdiction-wide adult prevalence survey of problem gambling. A total of 202 studies were conducted between 1975 and 2012. All pertinent information was extracted from each of these 202 studies and is reported in Appendices A, B, C, and D. These Appendices represent the most complete collection of problem gambling prevalence studies to date and will serve as a database for future researchers. In addition, the demographic, characterological, environmental, and gambling format correlates of problem gambling in these 202 studies are summarized and reported in Appendices E, F, G, and H. The second step in this process was the examination of the impact of methodological differences on obtained problem gambling prevalence rates. The main methodological elements influencing obtained problem gambling prevalence are: a) which assessment instrument is used; b) the time frame used to assess the presence of problem gambling (i.e., past year, lifetime); c) how the survey is described to prospective participants; d) how the survey is administered (i.e., face-to-face, telephone, self-administered); and e) the threshold criterion that determines when problem gambling questions are asked. The methodological approach (within each of these elements) that produced the most valid prevalence rate was identified, as well as weighting factors that could be applied to obtain rates that would have been obtained using the more valid approach. The third part of this report presents the results of applying these weighting factors to create standardized past year problem gambling prevalence rates for all studies. Between Jurisdiction Comparisons Depending on the specific country and the survey year, the standardized past year rate of problem gambling ranges from 0.5% to 7.6%, with the average rate across all countries being 2.3%. In general, the lowest standardized prevalence rates of problem gambling tend to occur in Europe, with intermediate rates in North America and Australia, and the highest rates in Asia. More specifically, the lowest standardized prevalence rates occur in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany. Lower than average rates are seen in Great Britain, South Korea, Iceland, Hungary, Norway, France, and New Zealand. Average rates occur in Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, United States, Estonia, Finland, and Italy. Above average rates occur in Belgium and Northern Ireland. The highest rates are observed in Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, and South Africa. 6 Within Australia, the lowest standardized rates occur in Western Australia. Other states appear to have average rates. Sampling problems preclude definitive statements about the Northern Territory. Within Canada, the lowest standardized rates occur in Quebec and Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia’s rates have also been below average. The rates in Alberta, New Brunswick, and British Columbia have tended to be slightly higher than average. Intermediate rates are observed in other provinces. No prevalence studies have been conducted in the 3 Canadian territories (Yukon, Nunavut, Northwest Territories). A total of 31/50 U.S. states have conducted a prevalence study of gambling, with these studies being more common in states with higher levels of gambling availability. For states where prevalence rates are available, lower than average rates have been obtained in Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa. The prevalence rate in Puerto Rico is significantly higher than all other rates. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Nevada have also had higher than average rates, as did Minnesota and New Jersey prior to 1995. Intermediate rates have been obtained in all other states. Within Jurisdiction Comparisons The final part of this report focuses on within-jurisdiction changes in standardized rates over time. No significant changes in prevalence rates over time were observed in the countries of Estonia, Germany, South Korea, and Sweden. However, recent prevalence rates were significantly lower than earlier prevalence rates in Finland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, and Switzerland. In contrast, recent rates were significantly higher than earlier prevalence rates in Great Britain, Iceland, and the United States. (The increased U.S. rate is partly due to the relatively early comparison years: 1998 versus 2000). In Norway, the prevalence rate in 2005 was significantly higher than previous rates in 1997 and 2002, as well as subsequent rates in 2007 and 2008. In Canada, the prevalence rate in 2002 was significantly lower than in 2000 and 2007 (which may be due to the lack of anonymity in the 2002 study). As indicated, the U.S. and Canadian results may be artifactual, and, in any case, the state and provincial changes over time in these two jurisdictions provide better data sets to evaluate whether significant changes have occurred over time. Within Australia, significant changes in prevalence rates over time were observed in all states and territories except Western Australia. In all cases except Victoria this change represented a significant decrease in recent years compared to earlier years. Within Canada, significant changes in prevalence rates over time were found in 7 out of 10 provinces. The failure to find significant changes in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island may be due to the recency of the survey year comparisons in the case of Newfoundland, and the small sample sizes used in the Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island 7 studies. In all cases of significant change over time in the 7 other provinces, the changes represented decreases in recent years compared to earlier
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 3: Pathological and Problem Gamblers in the United States The
    Chapter 3: Pathological And Problem Gamblers In The United States The perception of increased pathological and problem gambling is currently driving interest and concern among policymakers, treatment professionals, industry officials, gambling researchers, and the public. Data describing the extent of pathological and problem gambling are useful for many purposes, including planning public health services and medical services. This chapter discusses the prevalence of pathological and problem gamblers among the general U.S. population and specific subpopulations. As limited by the available data, the discussion is often framed in terms of the proportion of pathological and problem gamblers reported in studies of U.S. residents. Of particular concern is determining prevalence among reportedly vulnerable demographic groups, such as men, adolescents, the poor, the elderly, and minorities (including American Indians). We also attempt to examine trends in relation to the increased availability of legal gambling opportunities in the last decade. This chapter also makes comparisons with the prevalence rates of alcohol and drug abusers, to help put the magnitude of excessive gambling and related problems into perspective. LIMITATIONS OF PREVALENCE RESEARCH In Chapter 2 we described the difficulties involved in defining and measuring pathological gambling using various assessment instruments. Here it is important to note that comparing and interpreting prevalence findings is problematic when different studies use different screening and/or diagnostic instruments or criterion levels to measure differing levels of intemperate gambling and associated problems. Unfortunately, such differences are common in the research literature on pathological and problem gambling (Volberg, 1998b) which creates problems in estimating prevalence rates in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 California Problem Gambling Prevalence Survey
    2006 California Problem Gambling Prevalence Survey August 2006 Final Report Submitted to: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Office of Problem and Pathological Gambling Submitted by: Rachel A. Volberg Kari L. Nysse-Carris Dean R. Gerstein Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ vi Authorship ...........................................................................................vi Overview of Study ........................................................................................viii Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1 Methods ................................................................................................... 2 Gambling in California.................................................................................. 2 Problem Gambling in California....................................................................... 2 Correlates of Problem Gambling ...................................................................... 4 Awareness of Problem Gambling Services and Barriers to Help Seeking ....................... 4 Directions for the Future............................................................................... 5 Introduction.................................................................................................. 7 The
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Ready to Fly!
    Getting Ready to Fly! Commercial opportunities in the USA, the world’s biggest online gaming market. Scenarios. Forecasts. Milestones. Enter Executive Market Forecasts – How will Business Models Key Industry & Contacts Summary Size the Market Evolve? and Value Chains Market themes Contents Section One: Executive Summary . 3 Section Four: Business Models and Value Chains . 26 Market Barriers. 26 Section Two: Market Size . 8 Cannibalisation. 29 By State. By Population. 9 Strategic Models. 32 Land-Based. 9 KPIs . 39 Mobile/Tablet. 15 Social Gaming . 39 Product. 16 Land-based. 43 Section Three: Forecasts – How will the Market Evolve? 17. Section Five: Key Industry & Market themes . 47 New Jersey. 17 State-by-State. 47 Nevada. 18 Geo-location. 53 Delaware . 19 Compacts. 53 Federal. 20 Federal Law . 55 The Axes of Uncertainty. 22 Mobile/Tablet. 25 Section Six: Contacts . 58 2 Executive Market Forecasts – How will Business Models Key Industry & Contacts Summary Size the Market Evolve? and Value Chains Market themes Section One: Executive Summary Forecasts Exhibit 1: New Jersey Forecasts GGY licensed online gaming 334 The U.S. licensed online gaming market will be worth $285m GGY in 2014, significantly higher should compacts be created. The New Jersey licensed online gaming market will be worth $186m GGY in 2014, significantly lower than official 0 State forecasts. This will rise to around $214m if interstate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 compacts are created. n GGY ($Ms) n With Compacts ($Ms) The licensed U.S. online gaming market will require California 2014 186 214 to push through proposed poker regulations and roll-out licensed web-sites to push through the $1bn GGR barrier.
    [Show full text]
  • Gauge Your Gambling: the Acceptability and Feasibility of a Brief Online Motivational Enhancement for Non-Treatment Seeking Problem Gamblers
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Electronic Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Major Papers 5-11-2018 Gauge Your Gambling: The Acceptability and Feasibility of a Brief Online Motivational Enhancement for Non-Treatment Seeking Problem Gamblers Amanda Elizabeth Roberta Robinson University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd Recommended Citation Robinson, Amanda Elizabeth Roberta, "Gauge Your Gambling: The Acceptability and Feasibility of a Brief Online Motivational Enhancement for Non-Treatment Seeking Problem Gamblers" (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 7438. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/7438 This online database contains the full-text of PhD dissertations and Masters’ theses of University of Windsor students from 1954 forward. These documents are made available for personal study and research purposes only, in accordance with the Canadian Copyright Act and the Creative Commons license—CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivative Works). Under this license, works must always be attributed to the copyright holder (original author), cannot be used for any commercial purposes, and may not be altered. Any other use would require the permission of the copyright holder. Students may inquire about withdrawing their dissertation and/or thesis from this database. For additional inquiries, please contact the repository administrator via email ([email protected]) or by telephone at 519-253-3000ext. 3208. GAUGE YOUR GAMBLING: THE ACCEPTABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF A BRIEF ONLINE MOTIVATIONAL ENHANCEMENT FOR NON-TREATMENT SEEKING PROBLEM GAMBLERS by Amanda E. R. Robinson A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies through the Department of Psychology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada 2018 © 2018 Amanda E.
    [Show full text]
  • S.B. Dems the Big Winners
    Fall Dining Guide SBHS in GIUIC finals Standing guard Looking for a new dining experience? Vikings to face Bears for The change of seasons Check out this month's selection of conference title is reflected in area restaurants Davidson's Mill Pond Pages 14*15 Page 25 Page 3 Tv~~A co (/• SentineServing South Brunswick l NOVEMBER 5,1998 40 cents VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 S.B. Dems the big winners Van Hessen lone Republican winner; one Dem seat still too close to call BY CHARLES W KIM While Democratic incumbent Staff Writer Debra Johnson captured the mayor's seat, Democratic emocrats held on to incumbent Mayor Edmund their strong 4-1 munici- Luciano was the top vote-getter D pal government majori- in the nine-way race for four ty Tuesday, capturing the council seats, garnering 4,206 mayor's and three council seats. votes. Voters also gave their stamp Democratic incumbent of approval to the lour incum- Deputy Mayor Frank Gambatese bent candidates, including the came in second, collecting 4,003 lone Republican winner. votes, followed by incumbent The fifth seat on the new Republican Committeeman Ted Township Council — which wilt Van Hessen, with 3,840, replace the Township Commit- Antisell, with 3,756, and Barrett tee in January — is still undecid- with 3,752. ed, with Democratic newcomer The other Republican council Frank Antisell holding a slim 4- candidates, Larry Gildenberg, vote lead over his running mate Joann Kagan and Joe Del and fellow newcomer, Carol Guercio, received 3,535, 3,380 Barrett. Provisional votes, which and 3,349 votes, respectively, won't be available until tomor- followed by lone independent South Brunswick's first elected mayor Debra Johnson makes her triumphant entrance into the row or Monday, could erase that Democrats' post-election party at Pierre's Deli in Dayton Tuesday.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7. Gambling's Impacts on People and Places
    poor or undeveloped methodology, or CHAPTER 7. GAMBLING’S researchers’ biases. IMPACTS ON PEOPLE AND It is evident to this Commission that there are PLACES significant benefits and significant costs to the places, namely, those communities which embrace gambling and that many of the impacts, “Gambling is inevitable. No matter what both positive and negative, of gambling spill is said or done by advocates or over into the surrounding communities, which opponents in all its various forms, it is an often have no say in the matter. In addition, activity that is practiced, or tacitly those with compulsive gambling problems take endorsed, by a substantial majority of significant costs with them to communities 1 Americans.” throughout the nation. In an ideal environment, citizens and policy-makers consider all of the Even the members of the previous federal study relevant data and information as part of their would be astounded at the exponential growth of decisionmaking process. Unfortunately, the lack gambling, in its availability, forms and dollars of quality research and the controversy wagered, in the 23 years since they chose the surrounding this industry rarely enable citizens words above to begin their work. Today, the and policymakers to truly determine the net various components of legalized gambling have impact of gambling in their communities, or, in an impact¾in many cases, a significant one¾on some cases, their backyards. numerous communities and almost every citizen in this nation. The principal task of this Many communities, often those suffering Commission was to examine the “social and economic hardship and social problems, consider economic impacts of gambling on individuals, gambling as a panacea to those ills.
    [Show full text]
  • Casino Development: How Would Casinos Affect New England's
    C Horn C A Symposium Sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Robert Tannenwald, Editor Special Report No. 2 Published in October 1995 Preface / iii Welcome and introduction / v Cathy E. Minehan Panel I: impact on income and Jobs The extent to which casino development fosters the economic growth of a state or local area has been vigorously debated. What evidence of the economic effects of casino development do we have, based on both theory and empirical research? What can New England ]earn from regions where casinos are more widespread? What are the methodological issues in estimating casinos’ impact on jobs and income? Introduction Robert Tannenwa]d The Impact of Casino Gambling on income and Jobs / 3 Ear] L. Grino]s Gambling and the Law®: Endless Fields of Dreams® I. Nelson Rose indian Gaming’s impact on income and Jobs / 47 S. Timothy Wapato High=Stakes Casinos and Economic Growth / 52 Arthur W. Wright Panel ll: Implica~ons for Public Sector Revenues Casinos pay substantial taxes and fees to state and local governments. What is the optimal way to tax casinos? To what extent do taxes and fees collected from casinos displace public revenue generated by other forms of state-sponsored gambling, such as lotteries and parimutuel betting? Do revenues from casino taxes displace revenues from sales taxes? Who ultimately bears the burden of casino taxes? introduction / 59 Gary S. Sasse The Promise of Public Revenue from Casinos Charles T. Clotfelter Steven D. Gold Finances: The Case of New Jersey / 74 Ran3ana G. Madhusudhan Perspective of the Treasurer of Massachusetts / 87 The Honorable Joseph D.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedging Your Bets: Is Fantasy Sports Betting Insurance Really ‘Insurance’?
    HEDGING YOUR BETS: IS FANTASY SPORTS BETTING INSURANCE REALLY ‘INSURANCE’? Haley A. Hinton* I. INTRODUCTION Sports betting is an animal of both the past and the future: it goes through the ebbs and flows of federal and state regulations and provides both positive and negative repercussions to society. While opponents note the adverse effects of sports betting on the integrity of professional and collegiate sporting events and gambling habits, proponents point to massive public interest, the benefits to state economies, and the embracement among many professional sports leagues. Fantasy sports gaming has engaged people from all walks of life and created its own culture and industry by allowing participants to manage their own fictional professional teams from home. Sports betting insurance—particularly fantasy sports insurance which protects participants in the event of a fantasy athlete’s injury—has prompted a new question in insurance law: is fantasy sports insurance really “insurance?” This question is especially prevalent in Connecticut—a state that has contemplated legalizing sports betting and recognizes the carve out for legalized fantasy sports games. Because fantasy sports insurance—such as the coverage underwritten by Fantasy Player Protect and Rotosurance—satisfy the elements of insurance, fantasy sports insurance must be regulated accordingly. In addition, the Connecticut legislature must take an active role in considering what it means for fantasy participants to “hedge their bets:” carefully balancing public policy with potential economic benefits. * B.A. Political Science and Law, Science, and Technology in the Accelerated Program in Law, University of Connecticut (CT) (2019). J.D. Candidate, May 2021, University of Connecticut School of Law; Editor-in-Chief, Volume 27, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE, No. 1565 STATE of NEW JERSEY 215Th LEGISLATURE
    LEGISLATIVE FISCAL ESTIMATE [Second Reprint] SENATE, No. 1565 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 215th LEGISLATURE DATED: AUGUST 22, 2012 SUMMARY Synopsis: Authorizes Internet gaming at Atlantic City casinos under certain circumstances. Type of Impact: Revenue Increase: State General Fund; Casino Revenue Fund; Casino Control Fund. Agencies Affected: Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Gambling Enforcement; Department of the Treasury, Casino Control Commission. Office of Legislative Services Estimate Fiscal Impact FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 State Revenue Indeterminate – See comments below • This bill authorizes casino games in Atlantic City to be offered through the Internet to residents of New Jersey and to be accepted from certain persons who are outside of New Jersey as determined by the Division of Gambling Enforcement. • The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) cannot reliably estimate the increase in State revenue that could result from Internet gambling on authorized casino games offered by Atlantic City Casinos due to a lack of data. • Internet gambling in New Jersey would provide a new method of wagering on authorized casino games in Atlantic City. No current data exists for actual online gambling to provide the necessary economic, demographic, and consumer behavior information needed to make an estimate and any online gambling data that is available is limited and dated. BILL DESCRIPTION Senate Bill No. 1565 (2R) of 2012 authorizes Internet wagering at Atlantic City casinos to Office of Legislative Services Legislative Budget and
    [Show full text]
  • The Casino Debate in Massachusetts
    University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston Financial Services Forum Publications Financial Services Forum 4-1-2011 Dice or No Dice: The aC sino Debate in Massachusetts College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/financialforum_pubs Part of the Economics Commons, Gaming and Casino Operations Management Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston, "Dice or No Dice: The asinoC Debate in Massachusetts" (2011). Financial Services Forum Publications. Paper 28. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/financialforum_pubs/28 This Research Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Financial Services Forum at ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Financial Services Forum Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Spring 2011 Report Dice or No Dice: The Casino Debate in Massachusetts Dice or No Dice: The Casino Debate in Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Boston, College of Management Financial Services Forum Spring 2011 Report [1] Spring 2011 Report Dice or No Dice: The Casino Debate in Massachusetts Welcome to the UMASS – Boston, College of Management, Financial Services Forum’s 2011 Report on the casino debate in Massachusetts. The debate on casinos has intensified over the last few years. Governor Deval Patrick tried to get approval for three casinos back in September 2008, which was rejected by the then Speaker Salvatore Dimasi. However, two years ago, the Governor stood in the way of casinos by vetoing the bill passed by the House and the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling Report – Results from the 2016 Health and Lifestyles Survey
    Gambling report – Results from the 2016 Health and Lifestyles Survey February 2018 ISBN: 978-0-478-44924-2 Prepared for the Health Promotion Agency by: Thewaporn (Wa) Thimasarn-Anwar, Dr Hanna Squire, Dr Holly Trowland & Dr Greg Martin Citation: Thimasarn-Anwar, T., Squire, H., Trowland, H. & Martin, G. (2017). Gambling report: Results from the 2016 Health and Lifestyles Survey. Wellington: Health Promotion Agency Research and Evaluation Unit. HEALTH PROMOTION AGENCY PO Box 2142 Wellington 6140 New Zealand www.hpa.org.nz February 2018 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Health for their input in the 2016 Health and Lifestyles Survey (HLS) gambling module. The authors would also like to acknowledge the research companies that carried out the fieldwork for the Gambling Betting Activities Survey (GBAS) and the HLS: CBG Research Ltd for the 2012, 2014 and 2016 HLS, and National Research Bureau for the 2006/07 GBAS and the 2008 and 2010. The 2016 HLS gambling questionnaire was created through a collaborative design process incorporating feedback from the Health Promotion Agency (HPA), Department of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Health. Peer review for this report was provided by Dr Alana Oakly, Api Poutasi, Campbell Moore, Dr Charles Sullivan, and Dr John Wren. This report was funded by the Ministry of Health. The views of the authors do not necessarily represent the views or policy of the Ministry of Health or those of HPA. The Ministry makes no warranty, express or implied, nor assumes any liability or responsibility for use of or reliance on the contents of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Gambling in New Zealand Public Discussion Document Online Gambling in New Zealand – Public Discussion Document
    Online Gambling in New Zealand Public Discussion Document Online Gambling in New Zealand – Public Discussion Document Contents Message from Hon Tracey Martin, Minister of Internal Affairs ..............................................................4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................5 Background ........................................................................................................................................5 Online Gambling in New Zealand ............................................................................................................5 What are the issues and opportunities? ..................................................................................................6 Online gambling by New Zealanders is growing .........................................................................6 Overseas online gambling can harm New Zealanders while providing no community benefit or harm minimsation funding .........................................................................................6 An opportunity to safeguard New Zealanders against future gambling-related harm .............8 The current review of the racing industry will align with this work on online gambling .....................8 Setting a framework for the future of online gambling in New Zealand .............................................10 How this section works ..........................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]