![]() ![]() Perhaps the most serious limitation of existing prevalence research is that the volume and scope of studies are not sufficient to provide solid estimates for the national and regional prevalence of pathological and problem gamblers, or to provide estimates of changes in prevalence associated with expanded gambling opportunities and other recent secular trends. This distinction is made throughout the chapter to the extent allowed by the data available to the committee. ![]() Finally, literature on pathological and problem gambling rarely distinguishes, in an epidemiological sense, the difference between rates of pathological and problem gambling and proportions of pathological and problem gamblers. 1 Nor are there longitudinal studies that provide trend data for population cohorts or that track the progression of individuals into or out of the states of pathological or problem gambling. There is almost no research that examines the incidence of pathological or problem gambling cases over a representative, recent time period. Incidence is especially pertinent to policy questions involving the effects of increased gambling opportunities and changes in technology, industry practices, and regulation. Measuring pathological and problem gambling also requires distinguishing incidence from prevalence: incidence is the number of new cases arising in a given time period, and prevalence is the average total number of cases during a given time period, factoring in new cases and deleting cases representing cures deaths. Thus, many of those who are counted in prevalence research as being pathological or problem gamblers may have met screening or diagnostic criteria at some point during their lives, but did not manifest gambling problems at the time of the study. The time frame most common in available research, however, is lifetime. ![]() This variation is troublesome because the information of greatest policy relevance is generally the prevalence of current pathological or problem gambling, that is, estimates over a relatively recent but behaviorally representative time frame (e.g., the past year). Most of the prevalence research on pathological and problem gambling is specific about the population or area represented, but the time frames within which gambling behavior is assessed vary widely. A prevalence estimate requires specification of the population or geographical area represented and the time frame over which prevalence is defined (Walker and Dickerson, 1996). Unfortunately, such differences are common in the research literature on pathological and problem gambling (Volberg, 1998b), which creates problems in estimating prevalence rates in the United States.Īnother important limitation of the available prevalence research pertains to the different facets of the concept of prevalence. Here it is important to note that comparing and interpreting prevalence findings is problematic when different studies use different screening and/or diagnostic instruments or criterion levels to measure differing levels of intemperate gambling and associated problems. In Chapter 2 we described the difficulties involved in defining and measuring pathological gambling using various assessment instruments. This chapter also makes comparisons with the prevalence rates of alcohol and drug abusers, to help put the magnitude of excessive gambling and related problems into perspective. We also attempt to examine trends in relation to the increased availability of legal gambling opportunities in the last decade. Of particular concern is determining prevalence among reportedly vulnerable demographic groups, such as men, adolescents, the poor, the elderly, and minorities (including American Indians). As limited by the available data, the discussion is often framed in terms of the proportion of pathological and problem gamblers reported in studies of U.S. This chapter discusses the prevalence of pathological and problem gamblers among the general U.S. Data describing the extent of pathological and problem gambling are useful for many purposes, including planning public health services and medical services. The perception of increased pathological and problem gambling is currently driving interest and concern among policymakers, treatment professionals, industry officials, gambling researchers, and the public. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |