NCRG Insider Interview With Dr. Scott Teitelbaum: Addiction And Recovery

Dr. Scott Teitelbaum

A personal struggle with addiction and his own road to recovery led Dr. Scott Teitelbaum to build a nationally recognized addiction treatment program at the University of Florida College of Medicine. At the NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction, Dr. Teitelbaum explained more about his own recovery process and how it informs his research and clinical practices. Dr. Teitelbaum is the vice chair and the chief of addiction medicine in the department of psychiatry at the University of Florida College of Medicine. Dr. Teitelbaum is also the medical director of the Florida Recovery Center.

The NCRG blog team was able to interview Dr. Teitelbaum after his NCRG Conference session. Click below for the exclusive interview to hear him discuss his experiences with addiction and recovery, and his vision of what a good team of treatment providers might include in addiction recovery center.

Have a comment or question about the interview? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below. For more information on the Florida Recovery Center, visit their website atwww.floridarecoverycenters.com.

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and AddictionaddictionclinicianrecoveryresearchUniversity of Florida

/by

Rates Of Gambling Disorders In Iowa Mirror National Estimates

In October the Iowa Department of Public Health released a statewide report on gambling behavior and gambling disorders (Gonnerman & Lutz, 2011). Using the NODS instrument[1]the study found the rate of pathological gambling (PG), the most severe form of the disorder, in the past 12 months to be 0.3 percent. Using the PGSI instrument, researchers found that past-year rates of PG to be 0.6 percent. These rates are similar to the prevalence rate found in large-scale national surveys, such as the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) that reported a past-year rate for pathological gambling of 0.3 percent (Kessler et al., 2008). The Iowa report used two screening measures to collect data: the National Opinion Research Center’s DSM Screen (NODS) (Gerstein et al., 1999) and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), a validated brief measure based on the Canadian Problem Gambling Severity Index (CPGI) (Ferris & Wynne, 2001).

In the Iowa report, the researchers presented rates of problem gambling, which is a less severe form of the disorder that includes people who experience some gambling-related problems but not enough to be considered pathological gamblers (the PGSI refers to this group as “Moderate Risk”). The researchers found that 0.2 percent (NODS) and 2.6 percent (PGSI) of adult Iowans can be categorized as problem gamblers.

The difference between the NODS and PGSI rates may be due to the differing emphasis of the measures. The NODS was modeled on the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) criteria for PG while the PGSI was designed to take more social and environmental factors into consideration. The PGSI’s authors have previously hypothesized that this emphasis has probably caused the PGSI to report higher rates of moderate and low risk gambling than other measures (Ferris & Wynne, 2001). However, both of the rates reported in the Iowa study are similar to rates found in other national studies (e.g., Kessler et al., 2008). It is also important to remember that people in both the subclinical group (those who experience some problematic symptoms but not enough for a problem or pathological classification) and problem gambling group often move to groups with both more and fewer symptoms (Shaffer & Hall, 2002). That is, today’s subclinical gambler could be tomorrow’s non-gambler.

The Iowa study also presented a variable that these researchers called “Any Problem Gambling Symptom.” This variable included everyone in the sample who had experienced any symptom on the NODS or the PGSI screens during the past year, as well as those who answered affirmatively to an additional question that the researchers added for people to self-identify as having gambling problems. The study found that 13.1 percent of the sample fit into this “Any Problem Gambling Symptom” group, though it was not clear from the study why the researchers combined these three separate measures in this way and reported it as one all-inclusive percentage.

The Iowa report represents the first time that the NODS, the PGSI and the additional question have been combined in this way. For this reason there are no other studies to compare this rate to, nor is there any data on the characteristics of this participant group or information on what this group is likely to do (or not do) in the future. This is atypical in research studies because new variables are typically released with substantial theoretical and psychometric data to explain precisely what it is measuring and how it could be useful to the field.

There are other potential problems with combining these measurements in this way. First, there has been very limited research on people with subclinical gambling problems and it is not clear that having one symptom is meaningful in population studies. This is particularly true for lifetime measures, but past-year measures can also be problematic. For example, if a person reports that they once drank a lot of alcohol and it took them a few days to fully recover, then they have met one criterion for alcohol dependence, according to the APA’sDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(American Psychiatric Association, 1994). However, this doesn’t mean that they should be considered “at-risk” for alcohol dependence or that they will develop alcohol dependence in the future (most people respond to negative consequences by changing their behavior). One place where it is important to know if a person has had even one symptom of a gambling (or alcohol) disorder is in a clinical setting. This information may be beneficial to a treatment provider as they try to understand the individual and conduct further assessment. However, the usefulness of this data in a population study is not well understood and needs to be the focus of significant research before it is used as a valid and useful variable.

Another concern is the tendency of the public, and sometimes the media, to misunderstand the implications of such a finding by believing that a larger percentage of people are “at-risk” for developing a gambling disorder. Media reports that are not clear about subclinical gambling problems may add to this confusion. Is this report suggesting that 13.1 percent of Iowans will become pathological gamblers? The researchers did not draw this conclusion, and new research, referenced above, shows that individuals with some gambling problems, but not PG, are as likely to move back to health as they are to more problems. In other words, being “at-risk” is not necessarily a slippery slope to PG. While this study found rates of PG and problem gambling similar to the rest of the U.S., more research is needed on people that display at least one symptom of gambling disorders but do not meet diagnostic criteria for problem or pathological gambling.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994).DSM-IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(Vol. Fourth). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The canadian problem gambling index: user’s manual.Toronto (ON): Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Gerstein, D., Murphy, S., Toce, M., Volberg, R. A., Harwood, H., & Tucker, A. (1999).Gambling Impact and Behavior Study. Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, April 1, 1999.(p. 104). Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. Retrieved from http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nts&AN=PB2002-104073%2fXAB&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Gonnerman, M. E., & Lutz, G. M. (2011).Gambling Attitudes and Behaviors: A 2011 Survey of Adult Iowans(p. 125). Cedar Falls. IA: Center for Social and Behavioral Research, University of Northern Iowa.

Kessler, R. C., Hwang, I., LaBrie, R., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A., Winters, K. C., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.Psychol Med,38(9), 1351-60. doi:S0033291708002900 [pii] 10.1017/S0033291708002900

Shaffer, Howard J., & Hall, M. N. (2002). The natural history of gambling and drinking problems among casino employees.Journal of Social Psychology,142(4), 405-424.

[1]Discussed with other measures, below.

NCRG staffResearch UpdateIowaprevalence rates

/by

NCRG Conference: The Latest On Teen Gambling

The October 3 afternoon session of the12th annual NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addictionfeatured two leading researchers and their latest studies about youth gambling. Randy Stinchfield, Ph.D., clinical psychologist and associate director of the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research at the University of Minnesota, discussed his longitudinal research on the rates of youth gambling in Minnesota since 1992. Marc Potenza, M.D., Ph.D., professor of psychiatry in the child study center and of neurobiology and founding director of the Problem Gambling Clinic at Yale University School of Medicine, presented his findings from a survey of Connecticut youth that further explored the factors that are associated with teen gambling behavior. Dr. Potenza is also the principal investigator of the NCRG Center of Excellence in Gambling Research at Yale University.

Dr. Stinchfield began the session by stating that this is the first generation of youth to be exposed to a variety of gaming venues and widespread gambling advertising. He noted that the rapid expansion of gambling has brought on concerns about youth gambling behaviors and problem gambling in Minnesota.

Dr. Stinchfield analyzed data from a survey of 79,323 ninth and 12th-grade Minnesota students from 1992 to 2010 – one of the few studies that has tracked teen gambling behavior over an extended time period, including a time point when casinos were built in the state (Stinchfield, 2011). He aimed to:

(1) Measure the current (2010) rates of gambling among Minnesota public school students and compare that data with the variables of gender and race

(2) Measure the rates of underage gambling

(3) Compare gambling and frequent gambling rates from 1992 to 2010.

Results from the survey showed that there has been a significant decline in the percentage of youth who have gambled in the past year, and the lottery was the game that showed the most significant decline among those surveyed. Dr. Stinchfield hypothesized that this decline could be due to a few factors, some of which could include effective prevention efforts and the novelty of gambling wearing off in Minnesota. He also stated that youth now spend their free time in ways other than gambling: on cell phones, iPads and social networking sites. You can read more about Dr. Stinchfield’s study in theFebruary 2011 Gambling Disorders 360° post.

Next, Dr. Potenza presented results from a survey that he and his colleagues issued to 4,523 Connecticut high school students (Potenza et. al., 2011). The goal of this survey was to assess a broad range of risky behaviors that could be associated with problem gambling. Study participants included public four-year, non-vocational and special education schools in the state, and the sample demographics were consistent with the demographics of Connecticut residents aged 14-18 years from the 2000 Census.

Dr. Potenza and his colleagues concluded that adolescence is a developmental period that is characterized by engaging in risk-taking behaviors. They found an increased problem gambling severity in adolescents who also have problems with substance abuse, depression and aggression.

When the researchers asked the adolescents about their gambling activities, they found a number of similarities and differences between those who reported to gamble online and those that reported gambling offline in other ways. First, adolescents who gambled online were more likely to report problem gambling behaviors than the non-Internet gambling group. When comparing groups of teens that gambled online to those that gambled offline, poor academic performance and heavy alcohol use were more strongly associated with the Internet gambling group than those that gambled offline. However, factors of substance use, depression and measures of violence and aggression were strongly associated with problem gambling among both the Internet and non-Internet gambling groups of teenagers.

With these findings in mind, Dr. Potenza stated that future studies should identify specific personal and environmental factors in order to advance prevention, treatment and policy efforts.

These two researchers were a few of the many insightful talks from the NCRG Conference. Continue to visitGambling Disorders 360°for conference audio interviews from NCRG Conference presenters and attendees.

References

Potenza, M. N., Wareham, J.D., Steinberg, M.A., Rugle, L. Cavalla, D.A., Krishnan-Sarin, S., Desai, R.A. (2011). Correlates of at-risk/problem gambling Internet gambling in adolescents.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(2), 150-159.

Stinchfield, R. (2011). Gambling among Minnesota public school students from 1992 to 2007: Declines in youth gambling.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0021266l

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and AddictionadolescentsConferenceeducationgamblingPotenzaresearchStinchfieldteens

/by

New Study Supports Need For College-based Resources On Gambling Disorders

In 2009, the NCRG’s Task Force on College Gambling Policies recommended that colleges and universities promote understanding of gambling disorders as a mental health issue and provide assessment and intervention resources to address gambling disorders among college students. To assist schools with this recommendation and provide science-based tools to address gambling and gambling-related harms on college campuses, the NCRG launchedwww.CollegeGambling.org, a comprehensive online resource, in March 2011.

Research shows that approximately 75 percent of college students gambled during the past year, whether legally or illegally. Researchers from Montclair State University recently published a study about problem gambling awareness messages on college counseling center websites (CCW) to determine what types of information students received about gambling disorders and treatment (McKinley & Wright, 2011). This study further highlights the need for resources like CollegeGambling.org.

The authors argue that CCWs are a critical resource because college students, typically habitual Internet users, are likely to value problem gambling messages found online. Furthermore, research suggests that students perceive information on CCWs to be trustworthy and useful (Van Brunt, 2008). Online health information gathered anonymously is also likely to be appreciated by individuals struggling with a behavior that potentially carries a stigma, such as pathological gambling (Napoli, 2001).

The authors evaluated the content of 203 CCWs based at 4-year, largely residential colleges and universities. They studied whether the institutions’ CCWs offered the same level of information and services for problem gambling as they do for depression, stress/anxiety, pathological eating and alcohol and substance use. Their analysis showed that only 15 percent of the CCWs mentioned problem gambling. More specifically,

  • Less than 1 percent mentioned problem gambling on the home page
  • Almost 5 percent mentioned individual counseling for gambling problems
  • Less than 1 percent mentioned group counseling for problem gambling
  • Less than 5 percent provided a pamphlet on gambling problems
  • Less than 3 percent provided a link to a pamphlet
  • Less than 2 percent mentioned a self-help group for gambling
  • Less than 3 percent provided a link to a self-help group
  • Less than 5 percent provided a link to an issue-specific website devoted to gambling disorders
  • Less than 3 percent offered a self-assessment
  • Less than 1 percent mentioned educational outreach for problem gambling

The authors concluded that compared with the other health topics cited above, viewing gambling as a public health issue is a relatively new phenomenon (Korn & Shaffer, 1999), accounting for the low level of awareness of problem gambling among CCWs.

Want to learn more about gambling and gambling-related harms on college campuses? Make sure you visit CollegeGambling.org for the latest information and check back for additional information and resources.

References

Korn, D.A., & Shaffer, H.J. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective.Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 289-365.

McKinley, C.J., & Wright, P.J. (2011). Examining the presence of problem gambling awareness messages on college counseling center websites.Health Communication. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2011.571756.

Napoli, P.M. (2001). Consumer use of medical information from electronic and paper media. In R.E. Rice & J.E. Katz (Eds.)The Internet and Health Communication(pp. 79-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Brunt, B.J. (2008).Practical suggestions for improving your counseling websitePaper presented at Magna Publications, Madison, WI.

NCRG staffResearch Updatecollegecollege gamblingNCAAresearchresponsible gaminguniversity

/by

NCRG Awards Research Grant For An Online Tool To Help College Students Assess Their Gambling Behavior

To continue its support of research to address gambling and gambling-related harms on college campuses, the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG) awarded a research grant of $171,561 to Clayton Neighbors, Ph.D., professor of psychology and director of the Social Influences and Health Behaviors Lab at the University of Houston, for the development and testing of an online screening and brief intervention (SBI) aimed at reducing gambling-related problems among college students. The SBI will be included on the NCRG’s website,www.CollegeGambling.org, which was developed as a tool to help higher-education institutions address gambling disorders and responsible gaming on campus.

If you follow Gambling Disorders 360˚, you know that the NCRG is committed to addressing pathological and youth gambling through peer-reviewed research and public education programs. In March, the NCRG took that commitment one step further by launching CollegeGambling.org, an online resource for college administrators, campus health professionals, students and their parents. By supporting Dr. Neighbors’ research, the NCRG will be able to provide an online tool that can be used by campus mental health professionals and students to help reduce rates of problem gambling on college campuses.

Dr. Neighbors and his research team will conduct a randomized controlled trial evaluating a Personalized Normative Feedback (PNF) intervention for college students with gambling problems. Research has demonstrated that PNF interventions have been successfully used to reduce rates of drinking on campus by showing students their misperceptions about student drinking behavior. Dr. Neighbors will translate this research and create an online screening instrument and brief intervention that aims to help reduce problem gambling by showing students their misperceptions of student gambling behavior. This free resource is expected to be available on CollegeGambling.org in 2013.

In a recent conversation with NCRG Chairman Glenn Christenson, he highlighted the need for a new tool such as the SBI to address gambling disorders. ‘Nearly all U.S. colleges and universities have policies on student alcohol use; however, only 22 percent have a formal policy on gambling,’ he said. ‘Students who admit to having a gambling problem sometimes find a lack of support on campus. The goal of the SBI will be to help college students assess their own gambling behaviors to determine if their gambling is likely to be harming their health or increasing their risk for future harm.’

For more information about college gambling or additional resources to bring problem gambling awareness to a college student or campus, visitwww.CollegeGambling.org. Do you have a question about the SBI or the NCRG’s other research funding opportunities? Please contact Christine Reilly, senior research director for the NCRG, atcreilly@ncrg.orgor leave a comment in the section below.

NCRG staffICRG NewsgrantsNCRGnewsresearchUniversity of Houston

/by

NCRG Conference Presenter Discusses How To Use The Internet As An Intervention For Gambling Disorders

The third morning session at the 12thannual NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction was an especially good fit with the conference theme, “Risk or Reward: The Impact of Technology on Treatment, Research and Responsible Gaming.” Dr. John Cunningham, Canada research chair in brief interventions for addictive behaviors at the University of Toronto, presented a session called “Web-based Interventions for Alcohol Use Disorders: Implications for Gambling.” The session was especially pertinent because it highlighted the possibilities of using web-based treatments for gambling disorders, an option that is sometimes overshadowed by concerns about the potential negative effects of technology.

Dr. Cunningham began his talk by highlighting the tremendous potential that Internet-based interventions (IBIs) have as a treatment method for those with addictive disorders. One of the main benefits of IBIs is their ability to reach people who are not in treatment, a group that ranges from 88 to 93 percent of people with gambling disorders (Slutske, 2006). Dr. Cunningham stated that IBIs are well-suited for people with gambling disorders for a few reasons. First, 73 percent of people with gambling disorders have access to the Internet in their home and are able to access the IBI programs at any time of day. Second, participants like the privacy that IBIs provide, and individuals claim that they find it easier to write their experiences than to speak them. Dr. Cunningham also noted that online participation might be a first step to seeking treatment, and there is no evidence that people are using IBIs instead of attending in-person treatment.

To provide an example of what an IBI might look like, Dr. Cunningham talked about an IBI for alcohol use disorders titledwww.checkyourdrinking.net. The website contains a series of resources for people with alcohol use disorders such as self-tests, cognitive behavioral therapy tools and support group features. The self-test provides normative feedback about the average alcohol consumption for the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Research has shown that people want to behave in ways that are similar to their peers, and normative feedback uses this desire to encourage healthy behavior by pointing out when people are drinking more than the average.

The online tools, such as those on chooseyourdrinking.net, are particularly useful to host support groups because people can access their group at any time of day from any location with Internet access. This means that participants with a mobile phone who could connect to the Internet could also connect to their support group at any place where they might need support, including in the parking lot of a liquor store or casino.

Dr. Cunningham concluded that these tools currently being used for alcohol and tobacco use have potential for gambling disorders as well. While gambling research is not as far along as research related to other addictive disorders, there is evidence that similar tools may be useful.

For information about the work of Dr. Cunningham and his colleagues at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, you can visit their website athttp://www.camh.net/. For information about other sessions at the 12thannual Conference on Gambling and Addiction, please visit theconference websiteand check out some of the earlier posts on this page.

References

Slutske, W. S. (2006). Natural recovery and treatment-seeking in pathological gambling: results of two U.S. national surveys.American Journal of Psychiatry,163(2), 297-302. doi:163/2/297 [pii] 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.2.297

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and Addiction

/by

NCRG Conference: What The Research Shows – The Latest On Teen Gambling

A Monday afternoon session during the12th annual NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addictionfeatured two leading researchers and their most recent studies about youth gambling. Randy Stinchfield, Ph.D., clinical psychologist and associate director of the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research at the University of Minnesota, discussed rates of youth gambling in Minnesota since 1992. Marc Potenza, M.D., Ph.D., professor of psychiatry in the child study center and of neurobiology and founding director of the Problem Gambling Clinic at Yale University School of Medicine, presented his findings from a survey of Connecticut youth to understand the factors that can influence teen gambling behavior.

Dr. Stinchfield began the session by stating that this is the first generation of youth to be exposed to ready access to a variety of gambling venues and widespread gambling advertising. He noted that the rapid expansion of gambling has brought on concerns about youth gambling behaviors and problem gambling.

Dr. Stinchfield and his colleagues analyzed data from a survey of 79,323 ninth- and 12th-grade Minnesota students from 1992 to 2010 – one of the few studies that has been able to study teen gambling behavior over an extended time period, including a time point when casinos were built in the state. They aimed to:

  1. Measure current (2010) rates of gambling among Minnesota public school students and compare rates on gender, grade and race
  2. Measure rates of underage gambling
  3. Compare gambling and frequent gambling rates from 1992 to 2010

Results from the survey showed that there has been a significant decline in the percentage of youth who have gambling in the past year, and the lottery showed the most significant decline. Dr. Stinchfield noted that these data do not provide evidence of a youth gambling “epidemic,” but rather show the opposite – that youth gambling is declining.

Dr. Stinchfield hypothesized that this decline could be due to effective prevention efforts or the novelty of gambling wearing off. He also stated that youth now spend their free time on cell phones, iPads and social networking sites rather than gambling.

You can read more about Dr. Stinchfield’s study in thisFebruary 2011 Gambling Disorders 360° post.

Next, Dr. Potenza presented a study titled, “Health/functioning characteristics and gambling behaviors in adolescents stratified by gambling problem severity: Findings from a high-school risk survey.”

Dr. Potenza and his colleagues issued a survey to 4,523 Connecticut high school students that assessed a broad range of risk behaviors. Study participants included public four-year, non-vocational and special education schools in the state, and the sample demographics were consistent with 2000 Census of Connecticut residents aged 14-18 years.

Dr. Potenza and his colleagues concluded that adolescence is a developmental period that is characterized by engaging in risk-raking behaviors. They found an increased problem gambling severity in adolescents who also have problems with substance abuse, depression and aggression.

The researchers also found that a number of factors were associated with at-risk/problem gambling. (For this study, the researchers used the term ‘at-risk’ to describe the specific group, while others call them ‘subclinical’ or ‘low-risk’ gamblers.) Some of the measures were different for people who gambled online and those who did not . For example, significantly more online gamblers had poor academic performance than non-online gamblers. Other measures were significantly different between people with at-risk/problem gambling and low-risk gamblers, but not among online and non-online at-risk/problem gamblers. For example, all people with at-risk/problem gambling had higher rates of dysphoria and depression, but there was no significant difference in rates between online and non-online gamblers.

Dr. Potenza stated that future studies should identify specific personal and environmental vulnerability and resilience factors in order to advance prevention, treatment and policy efforts.

These two researchers were a few of the many insightful talks from the NCRG Conference. Continue to visitGambling Disorders 360°for conference audio interviews from leading researchers and industry representatives.

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and AddictionConferenceeducationpreventionresearchyouth gambling

/by

NCRG Conference: Responsible Gaming On The Internet – The Bwin.party Case Study

Breakout sessions at the NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction are a unique opportunity to hear from leaders in research on gambling disorders and responsible gaming in a smaller setting. Joachim Häeusler, the responsible gaming manager at bwin.party digital entertainment (bwin.party), led a Sunday-evening breakout session at this year’s conference that examined the company’s comprehensive player-protection program, as well as what the company’s goals for future responsible gaming initiatives.

Bwin.party is the largest, publicly listed online gaming operator and a major player in all regulated European online gambling markets. The company has online gaming licenses in 10 jurisdictions, with more than three million customers per year.

The company monitors and saves all Internet transactions, which are linked to player accounts. With this information, they can collect anonymous data such as gambling frequency, volume, betting patterns, usage of responsible gaming tools, usage of payment methods and patterns in deposit and withdrawal behavior.

In 2005, bwin.party collaborated with the Division on Addictions at Cambridge Health Alliance, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, to study online gaming behavior. Bwin.party provided full access to anonymous gambling transaction data of approximately 100,000 customers, which had been monitored over several years. The goal of this collaboration was to create a base of scientific evidence about actual online gambling behavior to help design a more comprehensive player protection program.

The Division on Addictions at Cambridge Health Alliance developed a predictive model of individualized player protection that classifies bwin.party customers into three types of gamblers and offers them different levels of protection:

Type of GamblerLevel of ProtectionModerate gamblers (approximately 95 percent of customers)Informed ChoiceAt-risk gamblers (approximately 4 percent of customers)ControlProblem gamblers (approximately 1 percent of customers)Protection

Informed Choice

For players who were classified as moderate gamblers, bwin.party offers informed choice for player protection. This allows players to educate themselves about responsible gaming and make decisions about their gambling behavior, based on what they learned. A responsible gaming website is located directly on the gambling portal and is accessible with one click. Players are able to see their account balance in real currency denomination of the header of the gambling website and have access to a comprehensive transaction overview. Players also can view a timer on the gambling portal to see how long they have been gambling.

Control

Players who are classified as at-risk gamblers are provided with choices of self-limitation and partial self-exclusion, as well as self-help tools. These customers may increase their limit, but the increased limit is only effective after a delay period of three days and an additional confirmation from the player. Eighty-eight percent of customers remain at the limits they originally imposed. These customers are also monitored by bwin.party for potential increases in problem gambling behavior.

Protection

Problem gamblers are provided with a two options to help them gamble responsible, and are encouraged to select the most appropriate choice for themselves that maximizes responsible gambling behavior and limit problem gambling behavior.
First, problem gamblers have the option to choose self exclusion, either temporarily (for a minimum of six months) or an indefinite period of time. If the player chooses self-exclusion, bwin.party sends them a confirmation email that includes resources for counseling. These customers are also exempt from direct mailings and advertisements. Temporary self-excluders can only reopen their account after explicit confirmation. Indefinite self-excluders can reopen their account after six months with additional requirements: a case investigation and a monitoring phase with a fixed deposit limit. Indefinite self-excluders also are put on national exclusion lists.

A second option for problem gamblers is to close their account. This can be done temporarily (for up to six months) or indefinitely. These customers are referred to counseling via information on the responsible gaming website. Players who choose temporary account closures can automatically reinstate their account once the predetermined time period is finished. Those who indefinitely close their accounts can only reinstate the account after explicit confirmation from the player. Bwin.party also has systems in place to prevent a player from simply creating a new account.

Future of Player Protection

Before the session concluded, Häeusler stated that there is still a missing piece in player protection: early detection or problematic gambling behavior. However, bwin.party is making steps to study the behavioral indicators for early detection of gambling-related problems and design “proactive player protections.”

What do you think about these player protections and methods to help players gamble responsibly? Share your thoughts in the comments below. For more recap posts from the NCRG Conference, make sure to stay tuned to Gambling Disorders 360˚.

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and Addictioncontinuing educationeducationgamblingInternetresponsible gaming

/by

Dr. Gary Small Kicks Off 2011 NCRG Conference With Talk On How Technology Changes The Brain

The 12th Annual NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction kicked off Sunday in Las Vegas with a plenary session featuring Gary Small, M.D., director of the UCLA Center on Aging at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior at UCLA. Dr. Small’s session was titled, “iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind.”

To begin his talk, Dr. Small started with a brief exercise for the audience to demonstrate the emotional impact that technology can have on people. He first asked the audience to turn on their phones, with the sound on, and be mindful of any feelings that the sound of their phone turning on might cause. He suggested that some people might have feelings of excitement or anticipation when turning on their phone. He then asked the audience to hand their phone to someone else and suggested that giving away one’s phone might cause feelings of nervousness or insecurity. After establishing this link between emotions and technology, Dr. Small went on to discuss the brain mechanisms that are activated when a person uses technology.

Addictions are, in Dr. Small’s estimation, a “battle in the brain” between the pleasure center of the brain that produces dopamine and the parts of the brain that control higher thought. Research has shown that dopamine is generally accepted as a key component in many addictive activities. Dr. Small believes that the connection between dopamine and technology addictions reinforces the similarity between more traditional substance use disorders and non-substance disorders like gambling disorders and technological addictions.

Dr. Small suggested that the key to having a healthy relationship with technology was about balance. That is, keeping online and offline activities in balance and using technological tools for things that they are useful for while not delegating all memory tasks and interactions to the online world. Dr. Small elaborated on his suggestions for technological balance in theaudio interviewhe did with the NCRG before the conference, and in his book.

For more information about Dr. Small’s work, including his bookiBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind, please visit hiswebsite. For more information about the 12th Annual NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction, please visit theNCRG website, and stay tuned to this blog for updates.

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and AddictionConferencecontinuing educationUCLA

/by

NCRG Conference: Science Vs. Myth – Research On Internet Gambling

Yesterday’s NCRG Conference attendees were able to hear the latest research on actual Internet gambling behavior from Sarah Nelson, Ph.D., associate director for research at the Division on Addictions at Cambridge Health Alliance, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, and instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Nelson led the session “Science vs. Myth: Research on Internet Gambling” at the12th annual NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction.

Dr. Nelson acknowledged that Internet gambling is growing, which can lead to speculation that increased accessibility makes Internet gambling more addictive than other types of gambling. However, Dr. Nelson stated that there are dangers of speculation without scientific evidence, including public confusion and criticism, misallocation of public health resources and a failure to help people who need help.

Currently, Dr. Nelson explained, there is very little peer-reviewed and published empirical research on Internet gambling. Until recently, theoretical propositions and opinion papers represented most of the professional discussion surrounding this topic, and the available empirical findings have been from studies that use variations of self-reporting methodology.

Dr. Nelson stated that Internet gambling provides unique opportunities for the study of gambling behavior and problem gambling. Unlike land-based gambling, the technology that makes Internet gambling a potential risk also allows for the study of actual real-time gambling behavior.

Bwin.party, the largest publicly-listed online gambling operator, offered data to help Dr. Nelson and her colleagues improve the player protection process of Internet gambling. Dr. Nelson and her colleagues identified four key questions to help them study real-time gambling behavior:

1. Who gambles on the Internet?

2. What are the play patterns of most Internet gamblers?

3. Is Internet gambling particularly addictive?

4. Is it possible to detect and isolate individuals with excess patterns of play?

The bwin.party data provided three different samples of Internet gambling:

– Internet sports betting, which consisted of a sample size of 40,499 sequentially subscribed Internet sports gamblers over the course of eight months.

– Internet casino betting, which consisted of 4,222 sequentially subscribed Internet casino gamblers over the course of 24 months.

– Internet poker betting, which consisted of 3,445 sequentially subscribed Internet poker players over the course of 24 months.

After further examination of these data, Dr. Nelson and her colleagues made the conclusion that “the results do suggest problem gambling is not as common among Internet gamblers as the speculations and the consequent conventional wisdom suggested.” One caveat was that researchers were not able to capture the players’ variations in levels of disposable income, which might broaden understanding of Internet gambling behavior. Dr. Nelson stated that the project revealed it is possible to study actual gambling behavior, and the results from these studies reveal findings quite different from expectations. She also noted that behavioral markers can be used to identify Internet gamblers at risk for experiencing problems.

Dr. Nelson also mentioned that she and her colleagues are currently working to develop an algorithm to help with early detection of gambling-related problems to all for proactive player protection.

Continue to visitGambling Disorders 360°for daily updates, on-site reporting about the sessions and audio interviews from leading researchers and industry representatives.

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and Addictioncontinuing educationgamblingInternetresearch

/by