Significant differences exist in problem gambling monitoring in Europe, a new study commissioned by the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) found. The report was published this month by the City, University of London.
According to the pan-European study, European countries take different approaches to monitoring and reporting problem gambling, with 12 countries having regular national surveys about problematic gambling prevalence. But significant differences exist in the measurement tools and methodologies used in these surveys, the study found.
The report describes levels of problem gambling in European countries as ranging from 0.3% to 6.4% of the adult population. However, significant differences in national survey methods, screening tools, survey timings and target age groups, make any meaningful comparison between nations “difficult.”
The study reviewed the monitoring and reporting frameworks of 20 European countries, covering the period 2015-2020, and assessed national approaches to problem gambling measurement and reporting methods, including relevant research studies and screening tools used to measure. The reported problem gambling levels were then compiled.
🚨 A new pan-European study by @CityLawSchool has found significant differences in how European countries monitor and report problem gambling with 12 countries having regular national surveys about problem gambling prevalence. Read more: https://t.co/prA4LQPuiL #safergambling
— EGBA (@EUgambling) April 26, 2022
The City, University of London research, which also reviewed gambling engagement levels, concluded that a more common approach to both monitoring and reporting would “help improve the understanding of problem gambling and its prevalence in Europe.”
The EGBA-commissioned study is part of the Brussels-based trade association’s commitment “to contribute to greater research and understanding about online gambling behaviors in Europe.” The EGBA says it hopes the findings will contribute to “a better understanding” of problem gambling.
“Our members are fully committed to promoting a stronger culture of safer gambling in Europe and through this study we aim to contribute positively to the understanding of problem gambling and its prevalence in Europe,” said Maarten Haijer, Secretary General for the EGBA.
“The significant differences in the way in which problem gambling is monitored and reported in Europe clearly stands out from the study,” added Haijer. “A shift towards a more common and regular monitoring and reporting framework for problem gambling would benefit all gambling sector stakeholders and support more effective and evidence-based prevention policies.”
💡 European countries define problem gambling in different ways, but it is typically defined by reference to either IDC-10 or DSM criteria, or both, according to a new EGBA-commissioned study published by @CityLawSchool. More information about the study: https://t.co/1ES0qyykec pic.twitter.com/I7MzIj6aEl
— EGBA (@EUgambling) April 27, 2022
The association further expressed hopes that the study will support “an open and inclusive dialogue” with other stakeholders about best practices, foster more common understandings of problem gambling, and support “effective and evidence-based approaches” to reduce gambling-related harm.
Specific findings from the study show that the most frequent surveys are carried out quarterly, and the longest interval is five years. National surveys are administered using various methods: gambling prevalence surveys or population-based gambling surveys are used in seven countries, while Health Surveys are the preferred vehicle in three countries.
The age ranges of those surveyed also vary across countries. The minimum age to participate in the “adult” surveys varies from 15 to 18 years old; while the maximum age for inclusion varies from 64 to 75 years old, while some countries have no upper age limit. Meanwhile, three countries estimate problem gambling prevalence levels through reference to the number of self-excluded players.
Levels of problem gambling are estimated from the surveys using a variety of screening tools: four countries use more than one tool with reference to the same survey. The most common screening tool is PGSI, and has been adopted in nine countries.
