Our Voices Matter: Using Lived Experience to Promote Equity in Problem Gambling Prevention

Not always as advertised: Different effects from viewing safer gambling (harm prevention) adverts on gambling urges

Public concern around gambling advertising in the UK has been met not by government action but by industry self-regulations, such as a forthcoming voluntary ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship in Premier League soccer. "Safer gambling" (harm prevention) adverts are one recent example, and are TV commercials which inform viewers about gambling-related harm. The present work is the first independent evaluation of safer gambling adverts by both gambling operators and a charity called GambleAware. In an online experiment, we observed the change in participants' (N = 2,741) Gambling Urge Scale (GUS) scores after viewing either: a conventional financial inducement gambling advert, a gambling operator's safer gambling advert, an advert from the GambleAware "bet regret" campaign, an advert from the GambleAware "stigma reduction" campaign, or a control advert that was not about gambling. Relative to a neutral control advert, GUS scores increased after viewing a financial inducement or an operator's safer gambling advert. In comparison to the neutral control condition, GUS score changes were similar after viewing a bet regret advert, but showed a significant decrease after viewing a stigma reduction advert. Those at higher risk of harm reported larger decreases in GUS after watching a bet regret or stigma reduction advert. Overall, this study introduced a novel experimental paradigm for evaluating safer gambling adverts, uncovered a potential downside from gambling operators' safer gambling adverts, and revealed variation in the potential effectiveness of charity-delivered safer gambling adverts.

The feasibility and acceptability of an inoculative intervention video for gambling advertising: a focus group study of academics and experts-by-experience

BACKGROUND

Gambling advertising employs a range of persuasive strategies. We therefore aimed to evaluate a counter-advertising intervention video to increase resilience to gambling advertising persuasion.

METHODS

Three in-depth focus groups were conducted, and each group contained a mixture of gambling-related academics (N = 12) and experts with lived experience of gambling-related harm (N = 10). Participants were given access to the intervention video and provided feedback during the focus groups. Qualitative data were audio recorded and thematically analysed by the research team.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified. First, participants recommended a shorter video that had a simplified and digestible structure. Second, frequent real-world examples of gambling advertisements within the video were discouraged, and the inclusion of a relatable human voiceover was considered imperative to the receptiveness of the video. Finally, participants deemed it important to deliver psychologically grounded yet jargon-free content via a conversational style. An overall narrative framed by consumer-protection was also preferred in order to increase acceptance of the video content, rather than a more didactic framing.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluating the acceptability of a counter advertising intervention video provided valuable insight from both an academic and lived-experience perspective. Such insight is instrumental to the meaningful co-design of counter-advertising interventions.

Involving lived experience in regional efforts to address gambling-related harms: going beyond 'window dressing' and 'tick box exercises'

BACKGROUND

Lived Experience (LE) involvement has been shown to improve interventions across diverse sectors. Yet LE contributions to public health approaches to address gambling-related harms remain underexplored, despite notable detrimental health and social outcomes linked to gambling. This paper analyses the potential of LE involvement in public health strategy to address gambling-related harms. It focuses on the example of a UK city-region gambling harms reduction intervention that presented multiple opportunities for LE input.

METHODS

Three focus groups and 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted to hear from people with and without LE who were involved in the gambling harms reduction intervention, or who had previous experience of LE-informed efforts for addressing gambling-related harms. People without LE provided reflections on the value and contributions of others' LE to their work. Data analysis combined the Framework Method with themes developed inductively (from people's accounts) and deductively (from the literature, including grey literature).

RESULTS

Four themes were identified: (1) personal journeys to LE involvement; (2) the value added by LE to interventions for addressing gambling-related harms; (3) emotional impacts on people with LE; and (4) collective LE and diverse lived experiences. Two figures outlining LE involvement specific to gambling harms reduction in the UK, where public health efforts aimed at addressing gambling-related harms coexist with industry-funded programmes, are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating a range of LE perspectives in a public health approach to gambling harms reduction requires local access to involvement for people with LE via diverse routes that are free from stigma and present people with LE with options in how they can engage and be heard in decision-making, and how they operate in relation to industry influence. Involving LE in gambling harms reduction requires enabling people to develop the affective and critical skills necessary to navigate complex emotional journeys and a challenging commercial and policy environment.