Nathan Smith, Program Officer National Center for Responsible Gaming March 23, 2017 Albuquerque

Transcription

1 Nathan Smith, Program Officer National Center for Responsible Gaming March 23, 2017 Albuquerque

2 vabout the NCRG vresponsible Gaming: A Literature Review vquestions? va Case Example vthe Reno Model vquestions? THE NCRG Overview

3 The National Center for Responsible Gaming is the only organization in the U.S. dedicated to peer-reviewed research and evidence-based educational programming on gambling disorder and responsible gaming

4 vfounded in 1996 by the AGA to support peer-reviewed research and education on gambling disorder and youth gambling vfocus on research encouraged by the gambling treatment community vfounding donors: Boyd Gaming and Station Casinos; other AGA members vcasino industry and related businesses have pledged more than $27 million since 1996 THE NCRG NCRG

5 Platinum - $300, Las Vegas Sands Corporation Silver - $100,00 - $199,000 JCM Global Bronze - $50,000 - $99,000 Boyd Gaming Corporation Station Casinos Wynn Resorts Sponsor - $10,000 - $49,000 Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock Pinnacle Entertainment MGM Resorts International Global Gaming Expo/Reed Exhibitions Penn National Gaming Isle of Capri Casinos IGT Potawatomi Hotel & Casino

6 Research proposals submitted to NCRG reviewed by independent experts NCRG Donors NCRG Scientific Advisory Board selects research projects for funding NCRG-funded research is published in competitive, peerreviewed scientific journals Protecting the Integrity of NCRG-funded Research

7 ümore than 325 articles in peer-reviewed journals üncrg-funded research cited 27,000 times in scientific publications üfirst reliable estimates of prevalence üfirst evidence for role of genetics and family history üfirst significant research on self-exclusion üneuroscience research paved the way for the reclassification of gambling disorder as an addiction in the DSM-5 SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES THANKS TO NCRG

8

9 Responsible gambling refers to policies and practices designed to prevent and reduce potential harms associated with gambling; these policies and practices often incorporate a diverse range of interventions designed to promote consumer protection, community and consumer awareness and education, and access to efficacious treatment. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling studies, 20(3),

10 The Data Set -247 studies were identified -150 of those were about RG -basic demographic data of studies was collected -studies were then categorized by RG strategy, RG tactic, and level of research (discussed later)

11

12 Government Focused -government policy -prohibition -restrict availability -restrict advertising -RG Code of Conduct -age limits -school based RG curriculum -3 rd party exclusion Industry Focused -staff training -corporate social responsibility -self-exclusion -game structure Player Focused -informational messaging -on machines -pamphlets -pop-up notices -low-risk limits -onsite information centers -behavioral tracking -pre-commitment -voluntary -mandatory

13 Government Focused -government policy -prohibition -restrict availability -restrict advertising -RG Code of Conduct -age limits -school based RG curriculum -3 rd party exclusion

14 Industry Focused -staff training -corporate social responsibility -self-exclusion -game structure

15 Player Focused -informational messaging -on machines -pamphlets -pop-up notices -low-risk limits -onsite information centers -behavioral tracking -pre-commitment -voluntary -mandatory

16 Target -is the RG strategy aimed at a general audience (e.g. an advertising campaign) or a specific individual (e.g. behavior tracking) -more of a scale than a category (e.g. an advertisement on a billboard is more generally focused than an advertisement on a sports radio station)

17 Locus of Control -is the desired change in gambling behavior coming from inside the individual or outside the individual -internal LOC (e.g. voluntary self-exclusion) -external LOC (prohibition)

18

19 Type 1: Opinion & Theory -opinion/think pieces -descriptive data -literature reviews Type 2: Development & Lab Testing -developing programs -testing in a lab setting -real world testing without outcome data Type 3: Real World & Outcomes -specific tactic or tactics -real world setting -behavioral or health related outcomes -gambling less, reporting fewer symptoms, etc.

20

21

22

23 Conclusions 1) The peer-reviewed research on responsible gaming is a small but growing field. 2) There are many more published studies on opinion/theory and program design/testing than on actual, real-world program outcomes. 3) There are several responsible gaming tactics that have been well theorized and developed that are waiting for realworld efficacy testing.

24 Type 3 Evidence: Real World Studies with Outcomes Appear Effective -Self Exclusion Appear Ineffective/Inconclusive -Informational Messaging on Machines/Online -Onsite Information Centers

25 Type 2 Evidence: Lab Tests or Real World Studies, no Outcomes Evidence for Potential Benefits -Employee Training (with some limits) -Behavioral Tracking (online) Weak/Limited Evidence for Potential Benefit -Game Structure -Behavioral Tracking (on site)

26 Thoughts or Questions on this section? Please share with the group!

27

28 vdespite Nearby Casinos, No Spike Seen in Compulsive Gambling v The number of callers seeking help from the state compulsive gambling council's hotline dropped in 2016 from the year before THE NCRG Pennsylvania

29 vwhat is the problem with this? vwe don t know why the numbers are dropping! vare people not seeking help? vare people seeking help but not getting it and giving up? vis the hotline not seen as valuable? vare people getting help other places, like online? THE NCRG Pennsylvania 2

30 v Gambling addiction a greater problem in LA than expected v Increased awareness and improved outreach efforts are responsible for at least some of the dramatic jump in reported problem gambling, she said THE NCRG Louisiana

31 v What is the problem with this? vwe don t know why the numbers are increasing! vare more people seeking help? vare people viewing the hotline as more valuable than it used to be? vare people receiving help and telling friends about their good experience? THE NCRG Louisiana 2

32 v We have data. vwe do not have answers. vhow would you design a similar study that provides data & answers? What we are trying THE NCRG to avoid

33

34 Purpose 1) Outline a strategic framework for action 2) Provide clear definitions of: -stakeholders -assumptions -key principles

35 Stakeholders 1) Consumers 2) Industry 3) Healthcare Providers 4) Governments

36 Responsible Gambling Hotline: Stakeholders 1) Consumers: Provided information on the hotline and encouraged to use it for self of loved one 2) Industry: Helps to advertise the hotline. 3) Healthcare Providers: Get referrals from hotline. 4) Government: Funds hotline with industry tax money. Monitors call volume.

37 Assumptions 1) safe levels of gambling participation are possible 2) gambling can provide recreational, social and economic benefits to individuals and the community 3) some participants, family members and others can suffer significant harm as a consequence of excessive gambling 4) the total social benefits of gambling must exceed the total social costs 5) abstinence is a viable and important, but not necessarily essential, goal for individuals with gambling related harm 6) a return to safe levels of play is an achievable goal for some gamblers who have developed gambling-related harm

38 Responsible Gambling Hotline: Assumptions 1) Individuals don t know where to turn for help related to gambling problems. 2) Treatment works!

39 Key Principles 1. The key stakeholders will commit to reducing the incidence and ultimately the prevalence of gamblingrelated harms. Does our program match this principle? Yes! Access to treatment and support will lower incidence & prevalence.

40 Key Principles 2. Working collaboratively, the key stakeholders will inform and evaluate public policy aimed at reducing the incidence of gambling-related harms. Does our program match this principle? Yes! The program is highly collaborative.

41 Key Principles 3. Key stakeholders will collaboratively identify short and long term priorities thereby establishing an action plan to address these priorities within a recognized time frame. Does our program match this principle? Yes, if Short term goal: increase calls to the hotline Long term goal: increase number of individuals receiving treatment

42 Key Principles 4. Key stakeholders will use scientific research to guide the development of public policies. In addition, the gambling industry will use this scientific research as a guide to the development of industrybased strategic policies that will reduce the incidence and prevalence of gambling-related harms. Yes, if We partner with scientists to evaluate the program.

43 Key Principles 5. Once established, the action plan to reduce the incidence and prevalence of gambling-related harms will be monitored and evaluated using scientific methods. Yes if We use the data from the scientists to evaluate and improve the program over time.

44 Conclusions 1) Use the Reno Model as a framework 2) Define and assign responsibilities: -stakeholders -assumptions -key principles

45 Thoughts or Questions on this section? Please share with the group!

46 Nathan Smith, blog.ncrg.org