The dangers of conflating gambling-related harm with disordered gambling: Commentary on: Prevention paradox logic and problem gambling (Delfabbro & King, 2017)

Browne, M orcid:0000-0002-2668-6229; Rockloff, M orcid:0000-0002-0080-2690 In their critical review of the prevention paradox (PP) applied to gambling-related harm, Delfabbro and King (2017) raise a number of concerns regarding specific assumptions, methods, and findings as well as the general conce...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Main Authors: Browne, M, Rockloff, MJ
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Akademiai Kiado Rt, Hungary 2017
Subjects:
Gambling
Harms
Prevention paradox
170106 Health
Clinical and Counselling Psychology
New Zealand
Queensland
First Nations
Online Access:http://hdl.cqu.edu.au/10018/1234540
https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.059
Description
Summary:Browne, M orcid:0000-0002-2668-6229; Rockloff, M orcid:0000-0002-0080-2690 In their critical review of the prevention paradox (PP) applied to gambling-related harm, Delfabbro and King (2017) raise a number of concerns regarding specific assumptions, methods, and findings as well as the general conceptual approach. Besides discussing the PP, the review also considers the merits of considering a "continuum of harm," as opposed to the more traditional categorical approach to classifying problem gamblers. Their critique is carefully modulated and balanced, and starts a useful dialogue in the context of a public health approach to gambling. Unfortunately, some of Delfabbro and King's (2017) arguments rest on the treatment of gambling harm as a binary state and conflates gambling-related harm with disordered gambling. In this reply, we argue that the application of PP logic to gambling harm has not yet been addressed by us, and is only indirectly related to the more important objective of understanding how gambling can reduce ones' quality of life. © 2017 The Author(s). Associated Grant:MB and MR have received research grants from Gambling Research Australia, the Queensland Treasury Department, the Federal Department of Social Services, the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance, the First Nations Foundation, and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. MR has also received funding from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute.

Similar Items