The prevalence of gambling and problematic gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it