Skip to main content

icrg_png_214_65.png

  • Home
  • About ICRG
    • Leadership
    • History
    • ICRG Staff
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Funding
    • Annual Reports
  • Research Center
    • Apply for ICRG Funding
    • Grant Review Criteria
    • Key Research Findings
    • ICRG-Funded Research
    • Research Library
    • Scientific Achievement Awards
  • Education
    • Conference
    • Continuing Education Hours
    • Webinars
    • Treatment Provider Workshops
    • College and Youth Gambling Programs
  • Discovery Project
  • Resources
    • Gambling and Health Series
    • Gambling and Public Health: A Guide for Policymakers
    • The WAGER
    • Monographs
    • Videos
    • Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen
    • Talking with Children About Gambling
    • White Papers
    • Helpful Links
  • Press Room
    • Press Releases
    • News Alerts
    • Media Kit
    • Testimony
  • Blog

You are here

Home » Blog

Gambling Research and Funding Biases

by: NCRG staff | Feb 27, 2020

The gambling industry is often scrutinized for its influence on gambling research studies.  This scrutiny is based upon the belief that industry funders have an agenda that seeks to influence the research that it funds.  A previous study by Ladouceur et al., 2018 found that there are no significant differences between gambling research funded by the industry and those supported by non-industry sources.  In an attempt to expand upon these findings and make them more applicable, Shaffer and his colleagues completed a large-scale systematic review to look at the differences in hypothesis confirmation and rejection between industry funded and non-industry funded sources. 

What is the aim?

The aim of this study by Shaffer et al., 2019 was to determine the extent to which funding sources may influence characteristics of research design and outcomes.  A recent study completed for the same outcomes found that there were no differences between gambling industry and non-industry funded research. This current study expanded upon this prior research to determine the generalizability of these findings.  More specifically, this study expanded from “responsible gambling” research to all “gambling-related” research findings.

What did the researchers do?

Researchers completed a comprehensive review of 18 data bases that examined gambling studies from June 2008 to August 2018.  The sample included 720 studies from four gambling journals and 14 addiction journals and were all quantitative with clear gambling hypotheses.  Researchers used hypothesis confirmation and funding source information contained within the publications to determine the presence or absence of funding biases.  Industry-funded studies were defined as studies funded by gambling industry operators, excluding federally operated programs. Statistical analyses were completed to determine if there were any significant differences between studies that were industry funded and those that were not.

Why is this important?

This study Is important because the role of research funding, especially industry funding, is a source of considerable debate.  The nature of the concern of bias due to funding source warrants close consideration. Prior to this study, only one study had explored the effect of industry funding on gambling research outcomes, and this study aimed to expand and generalize those findings.

What did they find?

Researchers found that within the 720 studies in the sample, gambling industry-funded studies were no more likely to report confirmed or rejected hypotheses than non-industry funded.  Additionally, studies funded by the industry were more likely to include a Conflict of Interest Statement within the publication. More than 30 percent of studies within the sample included no funding source, 49.7% failed to include any COIs, and only 6.4% of the studies were industry-funded. The researchers concluded that this study helps highlight the necessity of transparency and disclosure when it comes to research publications, especially those regarding gambling disorder. 

 

Limitations

Although this study builds upon and strengthens previous findings on the effect of industry funding on gambling research, there are still some notable weaknesses.  This is still a beginning effort, with a coding system that was chosen by the researchers and which others may not agree with. Additionally, researchers reported that each study was limited to one hypothesis, and, therefore, secondary hypotheses were not examined within the sample. 

 

Ladouceur, R., Shaffer, H., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2018). Responsible gambling research and industry funding biases. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(3), 725–730.

 

Shaffer, P., Ladouceur, R., Williams, P., Wiley, R., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H. (2019). Gambling research and funding biases. Journal of Gambling Studies, 35(3), 875–886.

 
Read More »
Tags:
  • gambling research
  • funding

Share This

Categories

  • Book Reviews
  • Conference on Gambling and Addiction
  • Continuing Education Opportunities
  • ICRG News
  • In the News
  • Interviews
  • Issues & Insights
  • Research Update
  • Responsible Gaming

Archive

  • June 2022  (1)
  • May 2022  (1)
  • April 2022  (2)
  • March 2022  (2)
  • February 2022  (1)
  • December 2021  (1)
  • November 2021  (2)
  • October 2021  (1)
  • September 2021  (1)
  • July 2021  (1)
more

Connect With Us

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow Us on Slideshare Follow us on YouTube 

18 years of benefiting NCRG

21 years of benefiting the NCRG

Visit the CollegeGambling Webiste

Visit CollegeGambling.org

icrgtwitterlogo400px_1.jpg

 

© 2020 International Center for Responsible Gaming

Headquarters
900 Cummings Center
Suite 219-U
Beverly, MA 01915
Tel: 978-338-6610
Fax: 978-552-8452

E-mail: info@icrg.org

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use