Multi-Venue Self-Exclusion for Gambling Disorders: A Retrospective Process Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes an exploratory investigation of retrospective data related to the experiences and outcomes of individuals enrolled in a centralized multi-venue self-exclusion program for up to 24 months. The program was designed to offer convenient registration and to empower individuals to prevent their entry into multiple gambling venues or to restrict their access to non-gaming areas. A self-selected sample of 44 individuals participating in the program completed an online survey that assessed gambling history, motivations, and behaviours related to self-exclusion. Approximately two-thirds of the sample reported self-excluding in response to financial loss and hardship. Just over one-third breached the program by gambling in a nominated exclusion venue, the primary reason being a failure to cope with negative emotions. Concomitantly, fear of embarrassment, if detected, was cited as the main variable contributing to compliance. The paperless system eased enrolment procedures for a large majority of individuals, with the capacity to simultaneously exclude them from multiple venues being endorsed as the most helpful program feature. Self-reported benefits included reduced gambling for the majority of participants and a sense of greater control over urges and behaviours. Abstinent participants were less stressed than were non-abstinent participants, had fewer symptoms of depression, and reported a higher quality of life. Findings suggest that a self-exclusion program with convenient registration that prevents entry into multiple venues fosters positive outcomes for self-excluded gamblers, particularly those striving to maintain abstinence.Résumé Dans cette étude, on décrit une étude exploratoire de données rétrospectives liées aux expériences et aux résultats de personnes inscrites dans un programme centralisé d’auto-exclusion de multiples lieux pendant une période maximale de 24 mois. Le programme a été conçu de telle manière qu’il soit facile de s’y inscrire et pour habiliter les personnes à éviter de multiples sites de jeux de hasard ou à se restreindre à des zones exemptes de jeu. Un échantillon de 44 participants volontaires au programme a répondu à un questionnaire en ligne pour évaluer l’historique de jeu, les motivations et les comportements liés à l’auto-exclusion. Les deux tiers des répondants ont dit avoir adopté un comportement d’auto-exclusion par suite de pertes financières et de difficultés. Un peu plus d’un tiers n’a pas respecté le programme en jouant dans un lieu exclu désigné, la principale raison étant l’incapacité à faire face à des émotions négatives. Parallèlement, la crainte du sentiment de honte (si on se faisait prendre) a été citée comme principale variable de la conformité au programme. Pour une grande majorité de personnes ayant la capacité d’exclure simultanément de multiples sites, le fait de simplifier la procédure d’inscription sans remplir de papiers a été vu comme la fonction la plus utile du programme. Parmi les bénéfices cités par les participants, on a nommé la diminution des jeux de hasard et une meilleure maîtrise des pulsions et des comportements. Les participants abstinents, comparés à ceux qui ne l’étaient pas, étaient moins stressés, présentaient moins de symptômes de dépression et ont mentionné avoir une meilleure qualité de vie. Avec ces résultats, il est permis de penser qu’un programme d’auto-exclusion dans lequel il est facile de s’inscrire limite l’accès à de multiples lieux et donne des résultats positifs pour les joueurs inscrits, particulièrement ceux qui s’efforcent de maintenir l’abstinence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".