赌博的极限设定:对Delfabbro和King(2021)的进一步思考和观察

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
M. Griffiths, M. Auer
{"title":"赌博的极限设定:对Delfabbro和King(2021)的进一步思考和观察","authors":"M. Griffiths, M. Auer","doi":"10.1080/14459795.2021.2009003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A recent review by Delfabbro and King (2021) published in International Gambling Studies examined the efficacy of voluntary versus mandatory limit-setting in gambling. The review examined 25 empirical studies (18 on voluntary limit-setting and seven on mandatory limit-setting). In this short commentary, we outline a few other thoughts and observations as a supplement to their review. Of the 25 studies reviewed, only ten were published in peer-reviewed journals and given the high reliance on studies in the grey literature, there were other studies that could have been included. There were also other studies not meeting Delfabbro and King’s inclusion criterion that could have provided some further useful data.","PeriodicalId":47301,"journal":{"name":"International Gambling Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limit-setting in gambling: Some further thoughts and observations on Delfabbro and King (2021)\",\"authors\":\"M. Griffiths, M. Auer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14459795.2021.2009003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT A recent review by Delfabbro and King (2021) published in International Gambling Studies examined the efficacy of voluntary versus mandatory limit-setting in gambling. The review examined 25 empirical studies (18 on voluntary limit-setting and seven on mandatory limit-setting). In this short commentary, we outline a few other thoughts and observations as a supplement to their review. Of the 25 studies reviewed, only ten were published in peer-reviewed journals and given the high reliance on studies in the grey literature, there were other studies that could have been included. There were also other studies not meeting Delfabbro and King’s inclusion criterion that could have provided some further useful data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47301,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Gambling Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Gambling Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2021.2009003\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Gambling Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2021.2009003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要Delfabbro和King(2021)最近发表在《国际赌博研究》上的一篇综述考察了自愿与强制设定赌博限额的效果。该审查审查了25项实证研究(18项关于自愿设定限额,7项关于强制性设定限额)。在这篇简短的评论中,我们概述了其他一些想法和意见,作为对其评论的补充。在审查的25项研究中,只有10项发表在同行评审期刊上,鉴于对灰色文献研究的高度依赖,还有其他研究本可以纳入。还有其他研究不符合Delfabbro和King的纳入标准,可以提供一些进一步有用的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Limit-setting in gambling: Some further thoughts and observations on Delfabbro and King (2021)
ABSTRACT A recent review by Delfabbro and King (2021) published in International Gambling Studies examined the efficacy of voluntary versus mandatory limit-setting in gambling. The review examined 25 empirical studies (18 on voluntary limit-setting and seven on mandatory limit-setting). In this short commentary, we outline a few other thoughts and observations as a supplement to their review. Of the 25 studies reviewed, only ten were published in peer-reviewed journals and given the high reliance on studies in the grey literature, there were other studies that could have been included. There were also other studies not meeting Delfabbro and King’s inclusion criterion that could have provided some further useful data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.60%
发文量
32
×
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