Abstract
Background: This study updates prevalence estimates of gambling-related disorders in the United States and Canada, identifies differences in prevalence estimates among population segments, and identifies changes in prevalence over the past 25 years.
Method: A meta-analytic strategy guided the synthesis of 180 estimates derived from 146 prevalence studies.
Results: Prevalence estimates among adolescent samples were significantly higher than estimates among adult samples for both clinical (level 3) and sub-clinical (level 2) measures of disordered gambling within both lifetime and past-year time frames. Among adults, level 3 prevalence estimates continue to increase significantly.
Conclusions: Membership in youth, treatment, and prison population segments is significantly associated with experiencing gambling-related disorders. Understanding sub-clinical gamblers provides a meaningful opportunity to lower the public health burden associated with gambling disorders. Prospective studies of incidence are necessary to determine whether the prevalence of disordered gambling continues to increase among the adult general population and how adolescent gambling experiences change as this cohort ages.
Résumé
Contexte: L’étude vise à mettre à jour les estimations de prévalence des troubles associés aux jeux de hasard aux États-Unis et au Canada, à en cerner les différences selon divers segments de population et à définir les changements de prévalence des 25 dernières années.
Méthode: Une stratégie méta-analytique a guidé la synthèse de 180 estimations, dérivées de 146 études de prévalence.
Résultats: Tant au niveau clinique (3) que subclinique (2), les estimations de prévalence du jeu pathologique, la vie durant et au cours des 12 mois précédents, sont sensiblement plus élevées chez les adolescents que chez les adultes. Dans les échantillons d’adultes cependant, les estimations de prévalence de niveau 3 continuent à augmenter de manière significative.
Conclusions: L’appartenance aux segments des jeunes, des personnes suivant un traitement et de la population carcérale présente une corrélation significative avec les troubles associés aux jeux d’argent. En étant mieux renseignés sur les joueurs qui présentent des troubles subcliniques, on réduirait considérablement le fardeau de santé publique associé au jeu pathologique. Il faudrait aussi mener des études de cohortes prospectives pour déterminer si la prévalence du jeu pathologique continue à augmenter dans la population adulte générale et comment évoluent dans le temps les expériences de jeu d’une cohorte d’adolescents.
Footnotes
This research was supported by a grant from the National Center for Responsible Gaming, Kansas City, MO.
References
- 1.National Gambling Impact Study Commission. National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report. Washington, DC: National Gambling Impact Study Commission; 1999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.National Research Council. Pathological Gambling: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Shaffer HJ, Hall MN. Estimating the prevalence of adolescent gambling disorders: A quantitative synthesis and guide toward standard gambling nomenclature. J Gambling Studies. 1996;12(2):193–214. doi: 10.1007/BF01539174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shaffer HJ, Hall MN, Vander Bilt J. December. 1997. Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis. Boston: Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Shaffer HJ, Hall MN, Vander Bilt J. Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1369–76. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lesieur HR, Rosenthal RJ. Pathological gambling: A review of the literature (prepared for the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on DSM IV Committee on Disorders of Impulse Control Not Elsewhere Classified) J Gambling Studies. 1991;7(1):5–39. doi: 10.1007/BF01019763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shaffer HJ, Hall MN, Walsh JS, Vander Bilt J. The psychosocial consequences of gambling. In: Tannenwald R, editor. Casino Development: How Would Casinos Affect New England’s Economy? Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston; 1995. pp. 130–41. [Google Scholar]
- 8.American Psychiatric Association. DSM-IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4. Washington, DC: Author; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kandarian P. Boston Globe. 1998. Casinos seen as mixed blessing in Conn. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ladouceur R. The prevalence of pathological gambling in Canada. J Gambling Studies. 1996;12(2):129–42. doi: 10.1007/BF01539170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Jacobs DF. Illegal and undocumented: A review of teenage gambling and the plight of children of problem gamblers in America. In: Shaffer HJ, Stein SA, Gambino B, Cummings TN, editors. Compulsive Gambling: Theory, Research, and Practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1989. pp. 249–92. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Volberg RA. The prevalence and demographics of pathological gamblers: Implications for public health. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:237–41. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.84.2.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Volberg R. Prevalence studies of problem gambling in the United States. J Gambling Studies. 1996;12(2):111–28. doi: 10.1007/BF01539169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lesieur HR, Cross J, Frank M, et al. Gambling and pathological gambling among university students. Addictive Behaviors. 1991;16:517–27. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(91)90059-Q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1984. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company; 1991. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH, et al. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: How do their results compare? JAMA. 1996;276(16):1332–38. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03540160054033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hodgins DC, Wynne H, Makarchuk K. Pathways to recovery from gambling problems: Follow-up from a general population survey. J Gambling Studies. 1999;15(2):93–104. doi: 10.1023/A:1022237807310. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Beaudoin CM, Cox BJ. Characteristics of problem gambling in a Canadian context: A preliminary study using a DSM-IV-based questionnaire. Can J Psychiatry. 1999;44(5):483–87. doi: 10.1177/070674379904400509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jessor R. Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Developmental Review. 1992;12(4):374–90. doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(92)90014-S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Shaffer HJ, Zinberg NE. The social psychology of intoxicant use: The natural history of social settings and social control. Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in the Addictive Behaviors. 1985;4:49–55. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.4.1.49. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Walker MB, Dickerson MG. The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: A critical analysis. J Gambling Studies. 1996;12(2):233–49. doi: 10.1007/BF01539176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Campbell F, Lester D. The impact of gambling opportunities on compulsive gambling. J Social Psychology. 1999;139(1):126–27. doi: 10.1080/00224549909598366. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bunce R. Social and political sources of drug effects: The case of bad trips on psychedelics. J Drug Issues. 1979;9:213–33. doi: 10.1177/002204267900900207. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Berns D. Back to the future. International Gaming & Wagering Business. 1998;19(10):17. [Google Scholar]