Johanna Tjernberg, Sara Helgesson, Anders Håkansson, Helena Hansson
{"title":"Exploring the Users' Perspective of the Nationwide Self-Exclusion Service for Gambling Disorder, \"Spelpaus\": Qualitative Interview Study.","authors":"Johanna Tjernberg, Sara Helgesson, Anders Håkansson, Helena Hansson","doi":"10.2196/66045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Problem gambling and gambling disorder cause severe social, psychiatric, and financial consequences, and voluntary self-exclusion is a common harm reduction tool used by individuals with gambling problems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to explore users' experience of a novel nationwide, multioperator gambling self-exclusion service, \"Spelpaus,\" in Sweden and to inform stakeholders and policy makers in order to improve harm reduction tools against gambling problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 individuals who reported self-perceived gambling problems and who had experience of having used the self-exclusion service Spelpaus in Sweden. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed through qualitative content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 3 categories and 8 subcategories. The categories were (1) reasons for the decision to self-exclude, (2) positive experiences, and (3) suggestions for improvement. The subcategories identified a number of reasons for self-exclusion, such as financial reasons and family reasons, and positive experiences described as a relief from gambling; in addition, important suggestions for improvement were cited, such as a more gradual return to gambling post-self-exclusion, better ways to address loopholes in the system, and transfer from self-exclusion to treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Voluntary self-exclusion from gambling, using a nationwide multioperator service, remains an appreciated harm-reducing tool. However, transfer from self-exclusion to treatment should be facilitated by policy making, and loopholes allowing for breaching of the self-exclusion need to be counteracted.</p>","PeriodicalId":36351,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Human Factors","volume":"12 ","pages":"e66045"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11829171/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/66045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Problem gambling and gambling disorder cause severe social, psychiatric, and financial consequences, and voluntary self-exclusion is a common harm reduction tool used by individuals with gambling problems.
Objective: The aim of this study was to explore users' experience of a novel nationwide, multioperator gambling self-exclusion service, "Spelpaus," in Sweden and to inform stakeholders and policy makers in order to improve harm reduction tools against gambling problems.
Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 individuals who reported self-perceived gambling problems and who had experience of having used the self-exclusion service Spelpaus in Sweden. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed through qualitative content analysis.
Results: We identified 3 categories and 8 subcategories. The categories were (1) reasons for the decision to self-exclude, (2) positive experiences, and (3) suggestions for improvement. The subcategories identified a number of reasons for self-exclusion, such as financial reasons and family reasons, and positive experiences described as a relief from gambling; in addition, important suggestions for improvement were cited, such as a more gradual return to gambling post-self-exclusion, better ways to address loopholes in the system, and transfer from self-exclusion to treatment.
Conclusions: Voluntary self-exclusion from gambling, using a nationwide multioperator service, remains an appreciated harm-reducing tool. However, transfer from self-exclusion to treatment should be facilitated by policy making, and loopholes allowing for breaching of the self-exclusion need to be counteracted.