Responsible Gambling Research and Industry Funding Biases

• Published in: Journal of gambling studies 2019-06, Vol.35 (2), p.725-730
• Main Authors: Ladouceur, Robert, Shaffer, Paige, Blaszczynski, Alex, Shaffer, Howard J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brief Report; Community and Environmental Psychology; Economics; Financing, Organized; Gambling - psychology; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Psychiatry; Publication Bias; Research Design; Research Support as Topic - economics; Research Support as Topic - standards; Sociology
• ISSN: 1573-3602; 1573-3602
• DOI: 10.1007/s10899-018-9792-9

This brief report examines whether there are differences in aspects of different characteristics, including design/methodologies of responsible gambling (RG), between studies funded by industry as compared to other sources. To investigate this, the authors used those studies included in a recent meta-analysis focusing on the empirical basis of RG initiatives (Ladouceur et al. in Addict Res Theory 25:225–235, 2017 ). We examined eight associations between funding sources, and different design/methodological characteristics of these studies; type of strategy, inclusion of comparison groups, measurement scales and repeated measures, publication source, number of inclusion criteria met, secondary sources of funding, publication year. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the funding source, and the index study characteristics. These results do not support claims that funding exerts influence on the design or methodologies of RG studies. However, the absence of statistically significant findings should not be used to assert the absence of a funding effect because there are many reasons for failing to find differences, or interpretation of findings. Unexpectedly, a third of the papers included in this study failed to disclose their funding sources. This finding highlights the need for more open and transparent disclosures.