Duty of care, data science, and gambling harm: A scoping review of risk assessment models

IF 4.9 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Virve Marionneau , Kim Ristolainen , Tomi Roukka
{"title":"Duty of care, data science, and gambling harm: A scoping review of risk assessment models","authors":"Virve Marionneau ,&nbsp;Kim Ristolainen ,&nbsp;Tomi Roukka","doi":"10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>Duty of care policies mandate gambling operators to identify problematic gambling behaviours amongst their customers. Online operators often employ risk detection algorithms to accomplish this task. This scoping review focuses on how such data science applications can perform from a duty of care perspective.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In line with the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, we systematically retrieved academic studies, reports, and industry initiatives that used statistical methodologies to predict, model, or forecast gambling behaviour. The final sample consists of 31 academic studies published between 2015 and 2025, and 11 commercial solutions. Our analysis focuses on three critical stages of model development: 1) selection of estimation data; 2) decisions related to the model estimation process; and 3) assessment and interpretation of prediction model results.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Models vary in terms of predictors, dependent variables, methodological approaches and assessment. Most models attempt to identify harm that has already occurred rather than forecasting future harm. Data are typically aggregated despite higher granularity in original datasets. Measures to assess the prediction ability of models are not optimal. Industry funding or involvement is prevalent in model development.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Currently, risk assessment algorithms do not function pre-emptively and are unlikely to capture the full extent of harm occurring in digital gambling. As such, their usability within the duty of care framework remains limited. Ways forward would entail openness and standardisation in terms of choice of variables, forecasting horizons, assessment of methods, and evaluation of results to improve models and regulatory oversight.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72681,"journal":{"name":"Computers in human behavior reports","volume":"18 ","pages":"Article 100644"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in human behavior reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958825000594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims

Duty of care policies mandate gambling operators to identify problematic gambling behaviours amongst their customers. Online operators often employ risk detection algorithms to accomplish this task. This scoping review focuses on how such data science applications can perform from a duty of care perspective.

Methods

In line with the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, we systematically retrieved academic studies, reports, and industry initiatives that used statistical methodologies to predict, model, or forecast gambling behaviour. The final sample consists of 31 academic studies published between 2015 and 2025, and 11 commercial solutions. Our analysis focuses on three critical stages of model development: 1) selection of estimation data; 2) decisions related to the model estimation process; and 3) assessment and interpretation of prediction model results.

Results

Models vary in terms of predictors, dependent variables, methodological approaches and assessment. Most models attempt to identify harm that has already occurred rather than forecasting future harm. Data are typically aggregated despite higher granularity in original datasets. Measures to assess the prediction ability of models are not optimal. Industry funding or involvement is prevalent in model development.

Conclusions

Currently, risk assessment algorithms do not function pre-emptively and are unlikely to capture the full extent of harm occurring in digital gambling. As such, their usability within the duty of care framework remains limited. Ways forward would entail openness and standardisation in terms of choice of variables, forecasting horizons, assessment of methods, and evaluation of results to improve models and regulatory oversight.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信