Differences in gamblers' reported behaviours…

1. Differences in gamblers' reported behaviours… Serge Sévigny, Isabelle Giroux, Karina Côté, Martin Leclerc, Christian Jacques, Robert Ladouceur …according to the number of video lottery terminals per gambling site Study funded by the Fonds québécois pour la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC) and the Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec (MSSS).

2. Context Proximity, availability Ludoplex Public health concerns

3. Problem Is the Ludoplex more damageable? Would the Ludoplex help control …?

4. Objective To know more about players characteristics according to the type of sites they play in. To examine the links between the number of video lottery terminals (VLTs) per gambling site and gamblers' reported behaviours, motivations, etc.

5. First question Do VLT players gambling in sites containing 5-10 terminals report different behaviours then VLT gamblers who prefer to play in a site holding 335 VLTs?

6. Sample A sample of 322 players interviewed on site Here, the sample is limited to 209 players Ludoplex: 66 (26 men) 5-10 VLTs: 143 (86 men)

7. Procedure • Pilote study (n = 76) • Focus group • Questionnaire (45 minutes) • Training • May to October 2008 • AM, PM, night, week and weekend • Sites and participants selection • Debriefing

8. Data analyses Categorizing answers Using covariates -Sexe -Age -Nods--VLT

9. Results Ludoplex hosts more women (61% vs 33%; older players (59 vs 47); more players living as a couple (65% vs 30%); and more retired players (48% vs 20%). No differences between groups on income, education, mother tongue, place of birth.

10. Results

11. Results

12. Results On motivations to go to the most frequented site: Proximity (58,7 % vs 39,9 % Ludoplex); Socializing (36,4 % vs 13,4 % Ludoplex).

13. Results On sites characteristics, the three most influent: -proximity (25,1 % [5], 51,8 % [10] and 22,5 %); -tranquillity (9,8 % [5-10] vs 23,5 %). No difference on : -security, -good relations with owners/employees, -atmosphere, type of site, -decor and, -parking lots.

14. Results On proximity or distance: 4,2 km [5 VLTs] 1,78 km [10 VLTs]   11,01 km [Ludoplex] *

15. Results On differences between no problem gamblers and problem gamblers (NODS-VLT > 0) : Monthly hours played, monthly money spent, years of play, money in pocket, n times interrupting for $, gamble at night, ATM in site, anonymous play, opening hours, n of VLTs,

16. Results On differences between no problem gamblers and problem gamblers (NODS-VLT > 0) : proximity is important (less than 5 minutes), leave VLT to get money, changing site, play more money if more VLTs in site. Similar on : monthly frequency of play

17. Discussion Is playing in small sites a risk factor? No causal effect here… Results can guide decisions about ways of limiting the development of gambling problems.

18. Discussion -Study clienteles, gaming offer, -Adapt prevention or treatment to these clienteles (see Jim Westphal comm.), -Examine ways of limiting expenses

19. Discussion Differences in perceptions (players vs others) Minority of participants: VLT numbers, presence of isolated area, ATM, the possibility to reserve a machine, the possibility to get more money, auto-exclusion, and opening hours.

20. Limits Players interviewed in their gambling site Poor response rate (13%-- n of Questions) Self-reported…

21. Conclusion There are differences in player profiles according to the type of site they play in. Helping measures should target the different clienteles according to their particular charateristics.

22. Sophie Lafond, Isabelle Smith, Patricia-Maude Fournier, Isabelle Smith, Christian Jacques, Alexandre Lebel, Claudia-Lynn Pelletier, Marie-Frédérique Leclerc, Lamine Mohamed Baazi, Marie-Lyne Bédard, Gesa Bierwerth, Alexandra Careau, Audrey Galarneau-Têtu, Jérôme Houle, Marie-Christine Laplante, Geneviève Laurent, Marie-Pier Laviolette, Marie-Claude Lemay, Lavinia Létourneau-Ross, Catherine Quigley, Audrey St-Pierre,François Guimont. Thanks to collaborators

23. Correspondance Serge.Sevigny@fse.ulaval.ca

24. Updated abstract In the Quebec City region, a large venue containing 335 VLTs was compared to small sites (n = 32, randomly selected) each containing 5 or 10 VLTs. All sites were established in an equivalent socioeconomic setting. The sample comprised 209 participants: 66 (26 men) playing mainly in the large venue and 143 (86 men) playing mainly in small sites. All players were interviewed onsite by a trained research assistant. Findings show that more players had a score of at least 1 on the NORC DSM screen for gambling problem in the small-sites sample than in the large venue sample and this, when the NODS was adapted to VLT gambling problems. Participants playing in small sites gambled more frequently, spent no more money, have played on VLTs for a longer time, and were more numerous to have visited more than one gambling site than participants in the large venue. This study provides updated information on pathological gambling risk factors that can guide decisions about ways of limiting the development of gambling problems.