MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4400641274 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(24)00126-9

The prevalence of gambling and problematic gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4400641274 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueGambling Behavior and Treatments
Établissements canadiensCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Organismes subventionnairesNational Drug and Alcohol Research CentreNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Health and Aged Care, Australian GovernmentAustralian Government
Mots-clésMeta-analysisMEDLINEPsychiatryPsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,877
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,914

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,658
Tête enseignante GPT0,549
Écart entre enseignants0,109 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle