AIMS: On the basis of a new large-scale screening for the prevalence of problematic gambling behaviour in Denmark, the aim of the study was: (a) to evaluate the effect of applying different screening tools; and (b) to compare gambling behaviour in Denmark with the prevalence of problematic gambling behaviour in other Scandinavian countries. METHODS: The screening tools applied were the internationally validated SOGS-R and NODS. These were used within the same survey, thus allowing for comparison with surveys conducted in other Scandinavian countries where either the one or the other tool has been utilized. RESULTS: The prevalence of at-risk gamblers, problematic gamblers and pathological gamblers was significantly lower in Denmark than in the other Scandinavian countries. This held true for both genders as well as for different age groups in comparisons of Denmark and Norway. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable variation in the prevalence of problematic gambling between the Scandinavian countries, with Denmark having the smallest number of gamblers with problematic behaviour. The variation might be due to national differences in gambling preferences, access to games, public policies concerning gambling, etc., but investigation of this would require further comparative research.
AIMS: On the basis of a new large-scale screening for the prevalence of problematic gambling behaviour in Denmark, the aim of the study was: (a) to evaluate the effect of applying different screening tools; and (b) to compare gambling behaviour in Denmark with the prevalence of problematic gambling behaviour in other Scandinavian countries. METHODS: The screening tools applied were the internationally validated SOGS-R and NODS. These were used within the same survey, thus allowing for comparison with surveys conducted in other Scandinavian countries where either the one or the other tool has been utilized. RESULTS: The prevalence of at-risk gamblers, problematic gamblers and pathological gamblers was significantly lower in Denmark than in the other Scandinavian countries. This held true for both genders as well as for different age groups in comparisons of Denmark and Norway. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable variation in the prevalence of problematic gambling between the Scandinavian countries, with Denmark having the smallest number of gamblers with problematic behaviour. The variation might be due to national differences in gambling preferences, access to games, public policies concerning gambling, etc., but investigation of this would require further comparative research.