Preventive interventions by gambling providers in response to risky gambling behavior: what does science say?

Dutch gambling policy requires providers to identify risky gambling behavior and implement preventive interventions. But how solid is the scientific basis for this? In a systematic literature review, Judith Noijen (Jellinek Prevention and Arkin Research), Anne Marije Kaag (VU University Amsterdam), and Pim Widdershoven (VU University Amsterdam) investigated which preventive interventions have been studied and what is known about their effectiveness.

Key findings
A total of 13 studies were included in the research, divided into three types of interventions:

• Personalized feedback
  Interventions that give people insight into their own gambling behavior, sometimes in comparison with others (normative feedback). This approach seems to work particularly well for people with a moderate risk profile, as long as the feedback is clear and understandable.
• Mandatory gambling breaks
  Short breaks (5–15 minutes) after risky gambling behavior is detected can temporarily interrupt a gambling session.
  Longer breaks (60 minutes) are associated with lower stakes and fewer deposits.
• Providing information
  Information about the odds of winning or correcting misconceptions is most effective when it is presented in a personal, normative, and positive emotional manner.
  Personal (telephone) contact works better than written or general warnings.

Limitations
The quality of the studies varies greatly, the scientific evidence is limited, and most studies have been funded by the gambling industry. The effects found are usually small and short-lived. Long-term effects, effects on high-risk groups, and reduction of gambling harm have hardly been researched.

Recommendations
Even small effects can contribute to limiting gambling harm, especially when interventions are widely applied and form part of a coherent package of measures. The authors conclude that these interventions can be valuable building blocks within a broader prevention strategy, but should not be seen as a sufficient solution. Transparency about limitations and room for adjustment based on practical experience and additional independent research remain essential.

Read the full literature review here

This study, commissioned by ZonMw and the Netherlands Gambling Authority (Ksa), was conducted by the Academic Workplace Addiction of the Arkin Foundation (Arkin Research department), in collaboration with the Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology department of VU University Amsterdam.