The prevalence of gambling and problematic gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Gambling behaviours have become of increased public health interest, but data on prevalence remain scarce. In this study, we aimed to estimate for adults and adolescents the prevalence of any gambling activity, the prevalence of engaging in specific gambling activities, the prevalence of any risk gambling and problematic gambling, and the prevalence of any risk and problematic gambling by gambling activity. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched for peer-reviewed literature (on MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo) and grey literature to identify papers published between Jan 1, 2010, and March 4, 2024. We searched for any gambling, including engagement with individual gambling activities, and problematic gambling data among adults and adolescents. We included papers that reported the prevalence or proportion of a gambling outcome of interest. We excluded papers of non-original data or based on a biased sample. Data were extracted into a bespoke Microsoft Access database, with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool used to identify the risk of bias for each sample. Representative population survey estimates were firstly meta-analysed into country-level prevalence estimates, using metaprop, of any gambling, any risk gambling, problematic gambling, and by gambling activity. Secondly, population-weighted regional-level and global estimates were generated for any gambling, any risk gambling, problematic gambling, and specific gambling activity. This review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021251835). FINDINGS: We screened 3692 reports, with 380 representative unique samples, in 68 countries and territories. Overall, the included samples consisted of slightly more men or male individuals, with a mean age of 29·72 years, and most samples identified were from high-income countries. Of these samples, 366 were included in the meta-analysis. Globally, 46·2% (95% CI 41·7-50·8) of adults and 17·9% (14·8-21·2) of adolescents had gambled in the past 12 months. Rates of gambling were higher among men (49·1%; 45·5-52·6) than women (37·4%; 32·0-42·5). Among adults, 8·7% (6·6-11·3) were classified as engaging in any risk gambling, and 1·41% (1·06-1·84) were engaging in problematic gambling. Among adults, rates of problematic gambling were greatest among online casino or slots gambling (15·8%; 10·7-21·6). There were few data reported on any risk and problematic gambling among adolescent samples. INTERPRETATION: Existing evidence suggests that gambling is prevalent globally, that a substantial proportion of the population engage in problematic gambling, and that rates of problematic gambling are greatest among those gambling on online formats. Given the growth of the online gambling industry and the association between gambling and a range of public health harms, governments need to give greater attention to the strict regulation and monitoring of gambling globally. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,083 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,038 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».