C Livingstone1, A Rintoul2. 1. School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia. Electronic address: charles.livingstone@monash.edu. 2. School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To address the current status of responsible gambling (RG) as the dominant discourse for reducing gambling harm. STUDY DESIGN: The article is a narrative review of relevant literature analysed discursively. METHODS: We identified significant texts describing the discourse of RG and analysed these to extract major characteristics and themes of the discourse. These were then subjected to a critique, using the public health discourses as an alternative system for addressing gambling harm. RESULTS: The discourse of RG is inadequate for preventing or minimising gambling harm. A public health-focused approach to prevent and minimise gambling harm is likely to be far more effective but will be opposed by vested interests. CONCLUSIONS: It is timely to consider abandoning the discourse of RG. This discourse has been discredited because of its complicity with vested interests and a lack of evidence to demonstrate its efficacy in preventing or reducing harm. A public health response to the prevention of gambling harm is feasible and practical and can and should be further developed and implemented rapidly.
OBJECTIVES: To address the current status of responsible gambling (RG) as the dominant discourse for reducing gambling harm. STUDY DESIGN: The article is a narrative review of relevant literature analysed discursively. METHODS: We identified significant texts describing the discourse of RG and analysed these to extract major characteristics and themes of the discourse. These were then subjected to a critique, using the public health discourses as an alternative system for addressing gambling harm. RESULTS: The discourse of RG is inadequate for preventing or minimising gambling harm. A public health-focused approach to prevent and minimise gambling harm is likely to be far more effective but will be opposed by vested interests. CONCLUSIONS: It is timely to consider abandoning the discourse of RG. This discourse has been discredited because of its complicity with vested interests and a lack of evidence to demonstrate its efficacy in preventing or reducing harm. A public health response to the prevention of gambling harm is feasible and practical and can and should be further developed and implemented rapidly.
Authors: Marie-Claire Flores-Pajot; Sara Atif; Magali Dufour; Natacha Brunelle; Shawn R Currie; David C Hodgins; Louise Nadeau; Matthew M Young Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Heather Wardle; Gerda Reith; Fiona Dobbie; Angela Rintoul; Jeremy Shiffman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Nerilee Hing; Alex M T Russell; Gabrielle M Bryden; Philip Newall; Daniel L King; Matthew Rockloff; Matthew Browne; Nancy Greer Journal: J Behav Addict Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 6.756
Authors: Ludwig Kraus; Johanna K Loy; Andreas M Bickl; Larissa Schwarzkopf; Rachel A Volberg; Sara Rolando; Veera E Kankainen; Matilda Hellman; Ingeborg Rossow; Robin Room; Thomas Norman; Jenny Cisneros Örnberg Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Cheryl Dickson; Emilien Jeannot; Fabio Peduzzi; Jean-Félix Savary; Jean-Michel Costes; Olivier Simon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 3.390