Map the Gap
a critical review of the literature on gambling-related harm
ResearchPublished Oct 17, 2011
a critical review of the literature on gambling-related harm
ResearchPublished Oct 17, 2011
This report, commissioned by the Responsible Gambling Fund (RGF), aims to 'map the gaps' in the current evidence base relating to harmful gambling. It sets out findings from a Rapid Evidence Assessment of academic and 'grey' literature, describing the quantity and quality of existing research in this field, and highlighting areas in which evidence and knowledge are sparse or lacking. This report looks at:
The conclusion from this REA is that the evidence available to policy- and decision-makers in Britain on problem gambling is limited.
The research described in this document was sponsored by the Responsible Gambling Fund and conducted by RAND Europe.
This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.