| Literature DB >> 30305091 |
Livia Veselka1, Rochelle Wijesingha2,3, Scott T Leatherdale4, Nigel E Turner2,5, Tara Elton-Marshall2,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the proliferation of social casino games (SCGs) online, which offer the opportunity to gamble without monetary gains and losses, comes a growing concern regarding the effects of these unregulated games on public health, particularly among adolescents. However, given the limited research pertaining to SCG use, little is currently known about the manner in which adolescents engage with this new gambling medium. The present study aims to identify the factors that characterize adolescent social casino gamers, and to determine whether these factors differ by SCG type. Moreover, the study examines the extent to which social casino gaming is associated with monetary gambling and problem gambling in this cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescent; Facebook; Poker; Simulated gambling; Slots; Social casino games
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30305091 PMCID: PMC6180495 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-6069-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Sample Characteristics (n = 10,035), Youth Gambling Survey (YGS; Canada, 2012–2013)
| Unweight ( | Weighted (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| SCG poker (past 3 months) | ||
| Yes | 831 | 9.1 |
| No | 8415 | 90.9 |
| SCG slots (past 3 months) | ||
| Yes | 498 | 5.0 |
| No | 8711 | 95.1 |
| Facebook SCGs (past 3 months) | ||
| Yes | 796 | 9.0 |
| No | 8440 | 91.0 |
| Monetary gambling in past 3 months | ||
| Did not gamble | 5902 | 58.4 |
| Land-based gambling | 3095 | 32.3 |
| Online gambling | 833 | 9.3 |
| Problem gambling severity | ||
| No problem gambling | 8861 | 93.5 |
| Low to moderate | 338 | 4.2 |
| High | 216 | 2.2 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 4937 | 49.3 |
| Female | 5098 | 50.7 |
| Grade | ||
| 9 | 2635 | 22.6 |
| 10 | 2714 | 23.5 |
| 11 | 2403 | 23.1 |
| 12 | 2283 | 30.8 |
| Province | ||
| Ontario | 3892 | 89.4 |
| Newfoundland & Labrador | 2588 | 3.0 |
| Saskatchewan | 3555 | 7.5 |
| Weekly spending money | ||
| $0–$20 | 4018 | 41.9 |
| $21–$100 | 2537 | 22.9 |
| > $100 | 1610 | 16.0 |
| Don’t know/not stated | 1870 | 19.2 |
| Smoking status | ||
| Former smoker/never smoked | 9187 | 92.6 |
| Current smoker | 848 | 7.4 |
| Binge drinking | ||
| Never/not in last year | 5815 | 59.2 |
| Yes, in the last year | 3997 | 38.6 |
| Don’t know/not stated | 223 | 2.3 |
| Friend(s) who gamble | ||
| No | 7560 | 73.1 |
| Yes | 1929 | 21.4 |
| Not stated | 546 | 5.5 |
| Parent(s) who gambles | ||
| No | 5260 | 51.8 |
| Yes | 2523 | 25.0 |
| Don’t know/not stated | 2252 | 23.2 |
| School performance | ||
| Mostly As | 3313 | 29.9 |
| Mostly As and Bs | 4296 | 47.5 |
| Mostly Bs and Cs | 1632 | 16.0 |
| Mostly Cs or lower | 613 | 4.3 |
| Not stated | 181 | 2.4 |
| Screen time | 9597 | |
Note: SCG = social casino game. It is evident that the screen time variable is skewed, and therefore a natural logarithmic transformation was employed to make the measure more symmetrical in subsequent analyses
Fig. 1Severity of Problem Gambling by Social Casino Game Type Among Current Adolescent Gamblers (n = 3928)
Logistic Regression: Social Casino Game (SCG) Players versus Non-Players Across Game Type (n = 10,035)
| Model 1: SCG poker | Model 2: SCG slots | Model 3: Facebook SCGs | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Female | 0.89 (0.68–1.16), | 0.83 (0.64–1.06), | |
| Grade | |||
| 9 | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| 10 | 0.99 (0.73–1.33), | 0.96 (0.56–1.66), | 1.35 (0.85–2.12), |
| 11 | 0.87 (0.58–1.30), | 0.82 (0.47–1.43), | 0.88 (0.56–1.36), |
| 12 | 1.04 (0.70–1.54), | 0.62 (0.35–1.09), | 0.66 (0.44–1.01), |
| Province | |||
| Ontario | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Newfoundland & Labrador | 0.98 (0.80–1.19), | 1.18 (0.87–1.61), | 0.85 (0.59–1.22), |
| Saskatchewan | 0.90 (0.68–1.19), | 0.84 (0.56–1.26), | 0.70 (0.48–1.04), |
| Weekly spending money | |||
| $0–$20 | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| $21–$100 | 1.27 (0.84–1.92), | 1.32 (0.79–2.20), | |
| > $100 | |||
| Don’t know/not stated | 1.18 (0.84–1.67), | 1.54 (0.94–2.52), | |
| Smoking status | |||
| Former smoker/never smoked | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Current smoker | 1.36 (0.72–2.55), | 1.42 (0.92–2.18), | |
| Binge drinking | |||
| Never/not in last year | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes, in the last year | 0.94 (0.67–1.31), | 0.75 (0.52–1.08), | 0.87 (0.62–1.21) |
| Don’t know/not stated | 0.66 (0.32–1.37), | 0.72 (0.24–2.12), | 0.41 (0.16–1.07), |
| Friend(s) who gamble | |||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 1.35 (0.94–1.93), | ||
| Not stated | |||
| Parent(s) who gambles | |||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | |||
| Don’t know/not stated | 0.94 (0.74–1.21), | 1.01 (0.68–1.50), | |
| School performance | |||
| Mostly As | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Mostly As and Bs | 1.21 (0.79–1.87), | 1.15 (0.73–1.81), | 1.18 (0.93–1.49), |
| Mostly Bs and Cs | 1.50 (0.91–2.50), | 1.44 (0.78–2.68), | 1.42 (0.94–2.16), |
| Mostly Cs or lower | 1.60 (0.99–2.58), | 1.60 (0.83–3.08), | 1.40 (0.88–2.22), |
| Not stated | 1.40 (0.55–3.60), | 2.05 (0.80–5.26), | 1.86 (0.79–4.40), |
| Screen time (log) | 1.09 (0.83–1.43), | ||
| Monetary gambling in past 3 months | |||
| Did not gamble | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Land-based gambling | 1.27 (0.85–1.91), | ||
| Online gambling | |||
Note: SCG = social casino game. Statistically significant findings appear in bold font