Participation, prevalence and

harm - recent findings from a

large prevalence study

downunder

Rosa BilliHead, Research and Evaluation

VRGF, Australia

European Association of Gambling StudiesSeptember 2016Lisbon, Portugal

Presentation overview

• Introduction

• Methodology

• Survey questions

• Background

– EGM numbers in Vic

– EGM losses in Vic

• Findings – frequency of play PG and MR

• The story in a nutshell

Introduction

Why do we do prevalence

studies?•The most accurate reflection of the

population

•Do not involve selection biases

•Participants are selected at random

•Representative of the population (in

the technical research sense)

•Provide a wealth of information

about gambling participation

Page 3

Methodology

• N=13,554 Victorian adults (18+)

• CATI

• RDD

– Dual frame

• 1,003 mobile (numbers not able to be linked to specific

geographic regions)

• 12,551 landline

• 70/20/10 oversampling

• Stratified by DHS regions

• Multilingual interviews for Mandarin, Cantonese,

Italian and Greek.

Methodology

• In field June to November 2014

• Sub sampling

– 1/10 NPG and NG.

– 1/4 LR

– 10/10 PG MR

• Response rates

– landline 68.46%

– mobile 35.40%

Survey questions

• Gambling activity and

participation

• PGSI

• Harms (self, others)

• Gambling money

management

• EFTPOS use/withdrawal

• Pre-commitment

• Casino loyalty club

• Unrestricted EGMS at

casino

• Casino VIP gaming area

use

• Helps seeking behaviours

• GP visits

• Diagnosis of depression,

anxiety

• Alcohol use during

gambling

• Venue based gambling

• Demographics

Background

EGM numbers in Victoria

• 1992– EGMS introduced into Victoria

• 1998 – a total 27,500 EGMs were capped for hotels and clubs

– and additional 2500 for casino

• 2014– Cap on EGM numbers for hotels and clubs to 27,372

– plus a total of 2628 approved for the casino

• EGM numbers have remained unchanged since 1998– Still 30,000

EGM participation has decreased 2002-2014

• There has been a gradual decline in real EGM expenditure 2002-2015

Vic population and

EGM losses 1999-00 to 2015-16

Background

EGM losses 1999-00 to 2015-16

Findings- participation

The top four products in terms of participation by Victorian adults:

Lottery products (approx 47 per cent)

Buying tickets in raffles, sweeps and competitions (42 per cent)

Wagering on races (horse, harness, greyhounds) (21 per cent)

Gaming machines (17 per cent).

Gamblers were asked to indicate which gambling activity accounted for their

highest spend over the past 12 months. The same four products account for

the top spending activities:

Lottery products (approximately 50 per cent)

Buying tickets in raffles, sweeps and competitions (22 per cent)

Wagering on races (horse, harness, greyhounds) (10 per cent)

Gaming machines (10 per cent).

Percentages rounded to nearest whole percentage point (e.g. 46.9 per cent = 47 per cent).

Participation in gaming

machines: age and gender

Age group Proportion of

gaming machine

players (%)

18 to 24 13.97

25 to 34 14.28

35 to 44 13.87

45 to 54 13.54

55 to 64 18.53

65 and older 25.81

Male; 50,07

Female; 49,93

Gaming machine players

Participation in sports

betting: age and gender

Age group Proportion of

sports bettors

(%)

18 to 24 23.74

25 to 34 27.62

35 to 44 24.25

45 to 54 14.12

55 to 64 6.30

65 and older 3.97

Male; 80,64

Female; 19,36

Sports bettors

Prevalence 1

• Prevalence estimate PG 0.81%

– 2008 prevalence estimate was 0.7%

– not statistically significant

– translates to 35,500 Victorians

• Prevalence estimate of LR increased from 5.7% (2008)

to 8.91%

– equates to 391,000 Victorians

– linked to increase in LR gambling in women

Findings 2008-2014

• Participation in gambling decreased

– Non-gamblers increased from 27% to 30%

• Participation in EGM gambling declined from 21.5% to

16.8%

• Participation in racing increased from16.4% to 20.6%

(Spring racing carnival question change)

• Participation in sports & events betting increased 4% to

4.8%, however…….

– rates consistently remain much lower rates than other gambling

activities

– increase almost exclusively in males

* percentages to nearest decimal point

Prevalence 2

Category 2014 Prevalence (%)

(confidence interval)

2014 Total Victorian

adults

Non-gambler 29.90 (27.51-32.40) 1.3 million

Non-problem 57.59 (54.95-60.19) 2.5 million

Low risk 8.91 (7.18-11.01) 391,000

Moderate risk 2.79 (1.83-4.23) 122,500

Problem gambler 0.81 (0.48-1.36) 35,500

Harm

•An estimated 2.8 % of the Victorian adult population reported experiencing problems because of someone else’s gambling in the past 12 months –this amounts to approximately 122,500 adults.

•This roughly equates to about 3-4 people affected from someone else’s gambling

•First time we asked this question in prevalence study

(q13_1. In the last 12 months, have you experienced problems because of someone else’s gambling? Yes, no, DK, Refused)

Findings 2008-2014

Frequency of play - problem gamblers

•wagering (races) (played on average 67 times per year in

2008 and 204 times per year in 2014)

•gaming machines (played an average of 56 times in 2008,

in 2014 the average was 88 times)

•table games (played an average of 31 times in 2008, in

2014 the average was 59 times).

All results are significant

Findings 2008-2014

Frequency of play – moderate risk gamblers

•wagering (races) and table games (no statistically

significant change)

•gaming machines (played an average of 23 times in 2008,

in 2014 the average was 86 times)

•Lotto, powerball or pools (played an average of 28 times in

2008, in 2014 the average was 74 times).

All results are significant

Findings 2008-2014

EFTPOS– problem gamblersSince 1 July 2012, ATMs have been banned from gaming venues in Victoria

•Over the past 12 months how many times per

gambling session did you typically get money for

gambling through EFTPOS?

•__________times per session

•Don’t know

•Refused

Findings 2008-2014

EFTPOS– problem gamblersSince 1 July 2012, ATMs have been banned from gaming venues in Victoria

•Withdrawals from EFTPOS per gambling session by gaming machine players

related directly to PGSI risk level

PGSI Category Average EFTPOS usage

per session

NPG 0.14

LR 0.98

MR 1.55

PG 3.46

Total Gaming Machine Players 1.22

Gaming machine players –

where are they?

Year Mean estimated

resident

population 18

years plus

Victoria (million)

(ABS)

Participation rate

in gaming

machines

(Victorian

prevalence reports

by sample year)

Estimated

number of

Victorian adult

residents playing

gaming machines

2002-03 3.695 33.5% 1,238,000

2007-08 4.021 21.5% 864,500

2013-14 4.521 16.7% 756,815

Victoria and gaming

machines

• Participation in EGM gambling declined in

2014 in Victoria continuing a pattern of

decline observed over the last decade or

more.

• Despite decreasing participation, there has

been no significant decline in the

prevalence of problem gambling and EGM

expenditure is not decreasing in line with

participation

The story in a

nutshell…Victoria and

Gaming machines

• Decline in the number of gaming machine players since 2002-03 to 2014

with a 39 per cent decline

• Over the same period, real expenditure on gaming machines has declined

by around 19 per cent

• Fewer gaming machine players account for current expenditure levels

• 2015 prevalence study shows that:

– MR and PG who play gaming machines play them more often than they did in 2008,

that they withdraw more often from EFTPOS facilities at the venues than other gaming

machine players

– proportion of all MR (39%) and PG (51%) gamblers who state gaming machines are

their highest spend activity is higher than on any other form of gambling

The story in a

nutshell…Victoria and

Gaming machines

So what does this mean?.....

I leave you with this thought……….does it apply to

egm gambling?

“Mental disorders are not randomly distributed

throughout populations. To a degree they follow

existing lines of structural inequality and

disadvantage, both between and within societies.”Max Abbott 1993

President’s Address

World Federation of Mental Health

The study

Joint funding •The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation

•Department of Justice and Regulation, Victoria

Acknowledgments•Participants

•Schottler Consulting

•Paul Marden

•Kristal Yeung