普遍接受和使用智能手机应用程序交付干预赌博在澳大利亚。

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Gambling Studies Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1007/s10899-024-10373-9
C O Hawker, S S Merkouris, A C Thomas, S N Rodda, S Cowlishaw, N A Dowling
{"title":"普遍接受和使用智能手机应用程序交付干预赌博在澳大利亚。","authors":"C O Hawker, S S Merkouris, A C Thomas, S N Rodda, S Cowlishaw, N A Dowling","doi":"10.1007/s10899-024-10373-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Smartphones can extend the reach of evidence-based gambling treatment services, yet the general acceptability of app-delivered gambling interventions remains unknown. This study examined the general acceptability and use of app-delivered gambling interventions, and predictors of both, among 173 Australian adults with a lifetime gambling problem (48.5% male, M<sub>age</sub> = 46.4 years) recruited from an online panel. Overall, 55.5% of the sample had a positive attitude toward app-delivered gambling interventions, 8.1% had a neutral attitude, and 36.4% had a negative attitude. Furthermore, one in five participants (20.8%) reported using an app-delivered gambling intervention in their lifetime. Four dimensions of acceptability were examined, wherein 78.6% of participants endorsed confidence in the effectiveness of app-delivered gambling interventions and 66.5% perceived anonymity benefits, while 48.6% endorsed scepticism (e.g., potential to increase isolation) and 69.4% perceived technology-related threats (e.g., difficulty learning and applying app-based strategies). Positive predictors of acceptability and use included younger age, rural/regional residence, gambling expenditure, problem gambling severity, gambling harms, and use of professional support. Acceptability did not increase the likelihood of using app-delivered gambling interventions, however, which may suggest a translation gap. The findings support continued investment into the development and evaluation of app-delivered gambling interventions, with a focus on enhancing engagement and uptake. Uptake could be improved by promoting the effectiveness and anonymity of evidence-based app-delivered gambling interventions, particularly among receptive audiences (young people, rural/regional residents, those with greater problem gambling severity), while redressing scepticism and perceived technology-related threats among vulnerable subgroups (those with greater gambling expenditure and gambling-related harm).</p>","PeriodicalId":48155,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gambling Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The General Acceptability and Use of Smartphone App-Delivered Interventions for Gambling in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"C O Hawker, S S Merkouris, A C Thomas, S N Rodda, S Cowlishaw, N A Dowling\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10899-024-10373-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Smartphones can extend the reach of evidence-based gambling treatment services, yet the general acceptability of app-delivered gambling interventions remains unknown. This study examined the general acceptability and use of app-delivered gambling interventions, and predictors of both, among 173 Australian adults with a lifetime gambling problem (48.5% male, M<sub>age</sub> = 46.4 years) recruited from an online panel. Overall, 55.5% of the sample had a positive attitude toward app-delivered gambling interventions, 8.1% had a neutral attitude, and 36.4% had a negative attitude. Furthermore, one in five participants (20.8%) reported using an app-delivered gambling intervention in their lifetime. Four dimensions of acceptability were examined, wherein 78.6% of participants endorsed confidence in the effectiveness of app-delivered gambling interventions and 66.5% perceived anonymity benefits, while 48.6% endorsed scepticism (e.g., potential to increase isolation) and 69.4% perceived technology-related threats (e.g., difficulty learning and applying app-based strategies). Positive predictors of acceptability and use included younger age, rural/regional residence, gambling expenditure, problem gambling severity, gambling harms, and use of professional support. Acceptability did not increase the likelihood of using app-delivered gambling interventions, however, which may suggest a translation gap. The findings support continued investment into the development and evaluation of app-delivered gambling interventions, with a focus on enhancing engagement and uptake. Uptake could be improved by promoting the effectiveness and anonymity of evidence-based app-delivered gambling interventions, particularly among receptive audiences (young people, rural/regional residents, those with greater problem gambling severity), while redressing scepticism and perceived technology-related threats among vulnerable subgroups (those with greater gambling expenditure and gambling-related harm).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10373-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gambling Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10373-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

智能手机可以扩大基于证据的赌博治疗服务的范围,但应用程序提供的赌博干预措施的普遍接受程度仍然未知。本研究调查了173名有终身赌博问题的澳大利亚成年人(48.5%为男性,年龄46.4岁)的在线调查小组,调查了应用程序提供的赌博干预措施的普遍接受程度和使用情况,以及两者的预测因素。总体而言,55.5%的样本对应用程序提供的赌博干预持积极态度,8.1%的人持中立态度,36.4%的人持消极态度。此外,五分之一的参与者(20.8%)报告说他们一生中使用过应用程序提供的赌博干预。对可接受性的四个维度进行了检查,其中78.6%的参与者对应用程序提供的赌博干预措施的有效性表示信任,66.5%的参与者认为匿名有好处,而48.6%的参与者表示怀疑(例如,可能增加隔离),69.4%的参与者认为与技术相关的威胁(例如,难以学习和应用基于应用程序的策略)。可接受性和使用的正向预测因子包括年龄、农村/地区居住地、赌博支出、问题赌博严重程度、赌博危害和使用专业支持。然而,可接受性并没有增加使用应用程序提供的赌博干预措施的可能性,这可能表明存在翻译差距。研究结果支持继续投资于应用程序提供的赌博干预措施的开发和评估,重点是提高参与度和吸收率。通过促进基于证据的应用程序提供的赌博干预措施的有效性和匿名性,特别是在接受受众(年轻人,农村/地区居民,赌博问题严重程度较高的人群)中,可以提高接受度,同时纠正弱势群体(赌博支出和赌博相关伤害较大的人群)中的怀疑态度和感知到的与技术相关的威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The General Acceptability and Use of Smartphone App-Delivered Interventions for Gambling in Australia.

Smartphones can extend the reach of evidence-based gambling treatment services, yet the general acceptability of app-delivered gambling interventions remains unknown. This study examined the general acceptability and use of app-delivered gambling interventions, and predictors of both, among 173 Australian adults with a lifetime gambling problem (48.5% male, Mage = 46.4 years) recruited from an online panel. Overall, 55.5% of the sample had a positive attitude toward app-delivered gambling interventions, 8.1% had a neutral attitude, and 36.4% had a negative attitude. Furthermore, one in five participants (20.8%) reported using an app-delivered gambling intervention in their lifetime. Four dimensions of acceptability were examined, wherein 78.6% of participants endorsed confidence in the effectiveness of app-delivered gambling interventions and 66.5% perceived anonymity benefits, while 48.6% endorsed scepticism (e.g., potential to increase isolation) and 69.4% perceived technology-related threats (e.g., difficulty learning and applying app-based strategies). Positive predictors of acceptability and use included younger age, rural/regional residence, gambling expenditure, problem gambling severity, gambling harms, and use of professional support. Acceptability did not increase the likelihood of using app-delivered gambling interventions, however, which may suggest a translation gap. The findings support continued investment into the development and evaluation of app-delivered gambling interventions, with a focus on enhancing engagement and uptake. Uptake could be improved by promoting the effectiveness and anonymity of evidence-based app-delivered gambling interventions, particularly among receptive audiences (young people, rural/regional residents, those with greater problem gambling severity), while redressing scepticism and perceived technology-related threats among vulnerable subgroups (those with greater gambling expenditure and gambling-related harm).

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
5.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Journal of Gambling Studies is an interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination on the many aspects of gambling behavior, both controlled and pathological, as well as variety of problems attendant to, or resultant from, gambling behavior including alcoholism, suicide, crime, and a number of other mental health problems. Articles published in this journal are representative of a cross-section of disciplines including psychiatry, psychology, sociology, political science, criminology, and social work.
期刊最新文献
"When People Reach Out that is When They're Desperate": Understanding Informal and Formal Help-Seeking Practices for Gambling among Aboriginal Peoples in the Northern Territory, Australia. Disability Benefit and Gambling Disorder: A Longitudinal Study Based on National Registry Data. The Role of Social Deficits in the Link Between Social Gambling Motives and Problem Gambling. The General Acceptability and Use of Smartphone App-Delivered Interventions for Gambling in Australia. Striving Towards National Lower-Risk Gambling Guidelines: An Empirical Investigation Among a Sample of Swedish Gamblers.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1