Improved Self-exclusion Program: Preliminary Results
The gambling industry has offered self-exclusion programs for quite a long time. Such measures are designed to limit access to gaming opportunities and provide problem gamblers with the help they need to cease or limit their gambling behaviour. However, few studies have empirically evaluated these programs. This study has three objectives: (1) to observe the participation in an improved self-exclusion program that includes an initial voluntary evaluation, phone support, and a mandatory meeting, (2) to evaluate satisfaction and usefulness of this service as perceived by self-excluders, (3) to measure the preliminary impact of this improved program. One hundred sixteen self-excluders completed a questionnaire about their satisfaction and their perception of the usefulness during the mandatory meeting. Among those participants, 39 attended an initial meeting. Comparisons between data collected at the initial meeting and data taken at the final meeting were made for those 39 participants. Data showed that gamblers chose the improved self-exclusion program 75% of the time; 25% preferred to sign a regular self-exclusion contract. Among those who chose the improved service, 40% wanted an initial voluntary evaluation and 37% of these individuals actually attended that meeting. Seventy percent of gamblers came to the mandatory meeting, which was a required condition to end their self-exclusion. The majority of participants were satisfied with the improved self-exclusion service and perceived it as useful. Major improvements were observed between the final and the initial evaluation on time and money spent, consequences of gambling, DSM-IV score, and psychological distress. The applicability of an improved self-exclusion program is discussed and, as shown in our study, the inclusion of a final mandatory meeting might not be so repulsive for self-excluders. Future research directives are also proposed.
KeywordsCasino Self-exclusion Participation Satisfaction Impact
This research was supported by grants from the Fondation Mise-sur-toi (Loto-Quebec).
- American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
- Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, J. D. (2004a). Self-exclusion: A gateway to treatment. Report prepared for the Australian Gaming Council.Google Scholar
- National Gambling Impact Study Commission. (1999). Final report. Washington, Dc: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Responsible Gambling Council. (2008). From enforcement to assistance: Evolving best practices in self-exclusion. Discussion Paper by the responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar
- Sani, A., Carlevaro, T., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Impact of a counselling session on at-risk casino patrons: A pilot study. Gambling Research, 17, 47–52.Google Scholar
- Townshend, P. (2007). Self-exclusion in a public health environment: An effective treatment option in New Zealand. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 5, 390–395.Google Scholar