MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154172905 · doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000000709

The impact of COVID-19 on gambling and gambling disorder: emerging data

2021· review· en· W3154172905 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Hodgins, Rhys Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Gambling disorderPandemicPopulationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Psychiatry2019-20 coronavirus outbreakClinical psychologyMedicineDiseaseEnvironmental healthAddiction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The lockdown response to the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted commercial gambling in many jurisdictions around the world. The goal of this review is to systematically identify and describe the survey data and findings to date examining the effect on individual gambling and gambling disorder. RECENT FINDINGS: Of the 17 publications meeting inclusion criteria, the majority reported cross-sectional assessments (n = 11, 65%) and remainder were longitudinal in that they had earlier gambling data for participants (n = 6, 35%). Not surprisingly given the closure of land-based gambling, an overall reduction in gambling frequency and expenditure was reported in all studies. The estimate of the proportion of participants in both the general population and the population that gambles who increased overall gambling or online gambling was variable. The most consistent correlates of increased gambling during the lockdown were increased problem gambling severity, younger age groups, and being male. SUMMARY: These results suggest that the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on gambling and problematic gambling are diverse - possibly causing a reduction in current or future problems in some, but also promoting increased problematic gambling in others. The longer-term implications of both the reduction in overall gambling, and the increase in some vulnerable groups are unclear, and requires assessment in subsequent follow-up studies. However, in the short term, individuals with existing gambling problems should be recognized as a vulnerable group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.454
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207