Prevention Messages for EGMs: Effects on Behaviours and Cognitions

NCT06341504 | Recruiting

• 2 other identifiers: ALVMsg2023263472
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 80
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The goals of this randomized controlled trial are to test the manifold effects of prevention pop-up messages on participants' behaviours, cognitions and affects. This study is conducted among regular EGMs' players (defined as having played EGMs at least once every two weeks for the past 12 months) who are not classified as probable pathological gamblers by the PGSI. After answering a series of short questionnaires by phone, participants are asked to schedule a gambling session which is done in a laboratory on the university's campus. This laboratory replicates a typical bar, and is equipped with real EGMs. Participants are recruited under the false pretense of giving their opinion on the realism of the bar replica, and on the overall feeling of the gambling session in it. They are told that: (a) they are free to gamble as much and for as long as they like; (b) they are allowed to take breaks; (c) gambling is to be done with their own money; (d) the only compensation for participation are the potential winnings made while gambling; (e) net winnings across their whole session are paid, but losses are real. There is only one participant at a time in the laboratory for the gambling session. After having stopped by their own volition (some exceptions apply, see "Detailed Description" for further details), participants are debriefed on the real goals of this study and reimbursed any incurred losses while gambling. They are then be asked to answer another series of questionnaires.

Conditions

Gambling

Keywords

Prevention messages; Pop-up messages; Prevention; Gambling; Harmful gambling; Responsible gambling; Harm reduction; Communication; Self appraisal

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (20)

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Gambling session's total duration

  Time elapsed between the first time the participant puts money in the EGM (0h00) to the end of the gambling session. Session's duration is left for the participant to decide. While the participant is told they can play for as long as they like, there is a 2 hrs limit on the session duration. This limit is hidden from the participant. Session's duration includes any breaks taken from gambling on the EGM.

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Total time effectively spent gambling

  Same as Outcome 1 (Gambling session's total duration), but minus breaks taken from gambling on the EGM.

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Number of breaks taken

  Number of breaks taken from gambling on the EGM during the gambling session.

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Mean breaks' duration

  Average duration of breaks' taken from gambling on the EGM over the gambling session's total duration.

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Total breaks duration

  Sum of breaks' duration taken from gambling on the EGM over the gambling session's total duration.

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Mean time elapsed between breaks

  Average time separating any two breaks taken from gambling on the EGM over the gambling session's total duration.

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Money betted (physical)

  Money physically inserted in the EGM during the gambling session. This is evaluated as a cumulative amount at each timepoint a prevention message is presented in the experimental group and at the timepoint where the participant decides to end their gambling session (max 2h00). Money betted is also evaluated between said timepoints (e.g. between 1h10 and 0h40, between 0h40 and 1h10, etc.).

  Assessed at following timepoints from start of gambling session in the laboratory (Experiment phase; 0 hours 0 minutes): [1] +10 minutes; [2] +40 minutes; [3] +70 minutes; [4] +100 minutes; [5] end of gambling session (+2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Money betted (all)

  Money betted on the EGM during the gambling session. This is money used to "buy rounds on the EGM", whether it's money physically inserted in the EGM or money won while gambling and betted again. This is evaluated as a cumulative amount at each timepoint a prevention message is presented in the experimental group and at the timepoint where the participant decides to end their gambling session (max 2h00). Money betted is also evaluated between said timepoints (e.g. between 1h10 and 0h40, between 0h40 and 1h10, etc.).

  Assessed at following timepoints from start of gambling session in the laboratory (Experiment phase; 0 hours 0 minutes): [1] +10 minutes; [2] +40 minutes; [3] +70 minutes; [4] +100 minutes; [5] end of gambling session (+2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Number of bets placed

  Number of bets placed on the EGM during the gambling session. This is evaluated as a cumulative number at each timepoint a prevention message is presented in the experimental group and at the timepoint where the participant decides to end their gambling session (max 2h00). Number of bets placed are also evaluated between said (e.g. between 1h10 and 0h40, between 0h40 and 1h10, etc.).

  Assessed at following timepoints from start of gambling session in the laboratory (Experiment phase; 0 hours 0 minutes): [1] +10 minutes; [2] +40 minutes; [3] +70 minutes; [4] +100 minutes; [5] end of gambling session (+2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Gambling speed

  Number of bets placed on the EGM during the gambling session over a given amount of time (i.e. bets/min). This is evaluated at each timepoint a prevention message is presented in the experimental group and at the timepoint where the participant decides to end their gambling session (max 2h00). Gambling speed is also evaluated between said timepoints (e.g. between 1h10 and 0h40, between 0h40 and 1h10, etc.).

  Assessed at following timepoints from start of gambling session in the laboratory (Experiment phase; 0 hours 0 minutes): [1] +10 minutes; [2] +40 minutes; [3] +70 minutes; [4] +100 minutes; [5] end of gambling session (+2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Gambling intensity (physical)

  Money physically inserted in the EGM during the gambling session over a given amount of time (i.e. $/min). This is evaluated at each timepoint a prevention message is presented in the experimental group and at the timepoint where the participant decides to end their gambling session (max 2h00). Gambling intensity is also evaluated between said (e.g. between 1h10 and 0h40, between 0h40 and 1h10, etc.).

  Assessed at following timepoints from start of gambling session in the laboratory (Experiment phase; 0 hours 0 minutes): [1] +10 minutes; [2] +40 minutes; [3] +70 minutes; [4] +100 minutes; [5] end of gambling session (+2 hours maximum).

• Gambling behaviour (between group) - Gambling intensity (all)

  Money betted on the EGM during the gambling session over a given amount of time (i.e. $/min). This is money used to "buy rounds on the EGM", whether it's money physically inserted in the EGM or money won while gambling and betted again. This is evaluated at each timepoint a prevention message is presented in the experimental group and at the timepoint where the participant decides to end their gambling session (max 2h00). Gambling intensity is also evaluated between said timepoints (e.g. between 1h10 and 0h40, between 0h40 and 1h10, etc.).

  Assessed at following timepoints from start of gambling session in the laboratory (Experiment phase; 0 hours 0 minutes): [1] +10 minutes; [2] +40 minutes; [3] +70 minutes; [4] +100 minutes; [5] end of gambling session (+2 hours maximum).

• Perceived self-control while gambling on EGMs (between group)

  Participant's perceived ability to control their gambling behaviour (e.g. sticking to their predetermined limits) over the gambling session's total duration. Evaluated with a 7-points Likert scale (1 = "I never had control" to 7 = "I always had control").

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• General level of fun while gambling on EGMs (between group)

  Participant's general enjoyment of gambling on EGMS over the gambling session's total duration. Evaluated with a 7-points Likert scale (1 = "I hated it" to 7 = "I loved it").

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Psychological reactance to prevention pop-up messages (between group)

  Evaluated based on the Dillard \& Shen (2005) method: (a) Induction check (4 items, 7-points Likert scale, 1 = "Strongly disagree, 7 - "Strongly agree"); (b) Anger (4 items, 7-points Likert scale, 1 = "Strongly disagree, 7 - "Strongly agree"); (c) Cognitive response (count of negative thoughts in relation to the pop-up messages); (d) Attitude (7 word pairs, 7-points semantic differential scale).

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Perceived behavioural effectiveness of prevention pop-up messages (between group)

  Participant's perceived effectiveness of prevention pop-up messages on modifying their gambling behaviour during the gambling session. Evaluated with two 7-points Likert scale about the perceived effects of the prevention po-up messages on money betted and time spent during the gambling session (1 = "lowered gambling behaviour a lot" to 7 = "heightened gambling behaviour a lot").

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Change in gambling behaviours (within group) - Money betted (physical)

  Money physically inserted in the EGM. Change is evaluated by comparing self-reported betting habits on EGMs for the past 12 months (measured during the pre-experiment phase) and objectively measured money physically inserted in the EGM during the over the laboratory gambling session's total duration (Outcome 8; measured during the experiment phase).

  Change from Pre-experiment phase (i.e. "intake"; single measurement point; cover past 12 months) at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Change in gambling behaviours (within group) - Total time effectively spent gambling

  Time elapsed between the first time the participant puts money in the EGM to the end of the gambling session. Change is evaluated by comparing self-reported typical time spent gambling on EGMs for a single session for the past 12 months (measured during the pre-experiment phase) and objectively measured laboratory gambling session's total duration (Outcome 1; measured during the experiment phase). Note that, unbeknown to the participant, the laboratory gambling session is limited to 2 hrs max.

  Change from Pre-experiment phase (i.e. "intake"; single measurement point; cover past 12 months) at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Change in perceived self-control while gambling on EGMs (within group)

  Participant's perceived ability to control their gambling behaviour on EGMs (e.g. sticking to their predetermined limits). Evaluated with a 7-points Likert scale (1 = "I never had control" to 7 = "I always had control"). Change is evaluated by comparing self-reported typical perceived self-control while gambling on EGMs for the past 12 months (measured during the pre-experiment phase) and self-reported perceived self-control while gambling on EGMs over the laboratory gambling session's total duration (Outcome 14; measured in the post-experiment phase).

  Change from Pre-experiment phase (i.e. "intake"; single measurement point; cover past 12 months) at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Change in general level of fun while gambling on EGMs (within group)

  Participant's general enjoyment of gambling on EGMs. Evaluated with a 7-points Likert scale (1 = "I hated it" to 7 = "I loved it"). Change is evaluated by comparing self-reported typical level of fun while gambling on EGMs for the past 12 months (measured during the pre-experiment phase) and self-reported level of fun while gambling on EGMs over the laboratory gambling session's total duration (Outcome 15; measured in the post-experiment phase).

  Change from Pre-experiment phase (i.e. "intake"; single measurement point; cover past 12 months) at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

Secondary Outcomes (16)

• Perceived realism - Gambling location type most resembling the session in the laboratory

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Perceived realism - Session in the laboratory VS gambling on EGMs in a bar/restaurant

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Perceived realism - Similarities between session in the laboratory VS gambling on EGMs in a bar/restaurant

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Perceived realism - Differences between session in the laboratory VS gambling on EGMs in a bar/restaurant

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Perceived realism - What could be done to heighten realism of the session in the laboratory

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

Other Outcomes (5)

• Prevention pop-up messages recall - Free recall (Y/N)

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Prevention pop-up messages recall - Free recall (number)

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

• Prevention pop-up messages recall - Free recall (content)

  Assessed at the end gambling session in the laboratory (Post-experiment phase). Session's length is decided by participant (but limited to 2 hours maximum).

Study Arms (2)

Prevention pop-up messages

EXPERIMENTAL

Same as active comparator with the addition of prevention pop-up messages delivered during the gambling session on a fixed presentation schedule. Due to hardware limitations on the EGMs' part, the prevention messages presented only alter what is shown on the play screen (they fill it completely, hiding the game), but can't pause the game per se. The EGMs' buttons, sound, and music are still operational while the message is shown. While disrupting play flow, this still lets the participant place bets (albeit without seeing what is going on).

Behavioral: Prevention pop-up messages; Behavioral: Mandatory time limit; Behavioral: Responsible gambling information; Device: Electronic gambling machine (model IGT GL20); Device: Square terminal

Regular gambling session control

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Gambling session on EGMs in a room replicating a bar (subdued light, music, bar paraphernalia, fake liquor on display, research assistant acting as barman and selling non-alcoholic soft drinks and chips). Participants are invited to participate under the false pretense of giving their opinion on the realism of the bar replica and overall feeling of the gambling session in it. They are told that: (a) they are free to gamble as much and for as long as they like; (b) they are allowed to take breaks; (c) gambling is to be done with their own money; (d) the only compensation for participation are winnings that could be made while gambling; (e) net winnings across their whole session are paid up to $500, but losses are real. Lost money is given back after debriefing (see Study Detailed Description).

Behavioral: Mandatory time limit; Behavioral: Responsible gambling information; Device: Electronic gambling machine (model IGT GL20); Device: Square terminal

Interventions

Prevention pop-up messages BEHAVIORAL

Messages are shown full screen on the EGM's play screen on a fixed presentation schedule. Clock of the gambling session starts the first time the participant puts money in the EGM. From this event, messages are shown at those timepoints: \[1\] +10 minutes; \[2\] +40 minutes; \[3\] +70 minutes; \[4\] +100 minutes. Messages block the screen for 15 seconds before automatically closing. Up to 4 different messages are presented during the gambling session. Order is determined by sortition without replacement. Messages have a warning heading "Caution!". Content is, from top to bottom: (a) time spent gambling from beginning; (b) warning that gambling could lead to serious monetary loss; (c) 1 of 4 self-appraisal phrases about current gambling behaviour; (d) advice to the participant that a break could help choose what is best for them; (e) countdown before the message closes itself; (f) Health department logo is shown in the lower right corner as a more "neutral" endorsement of the messages.

Prevention pop-up messages

Mandatory time limit BEHAVIORAL

Activated either when (a) the previous time limit is up; or (b) the player bank meter reaches $0. When the previous time limit is up, a pop-up takes up the upper third of the play screen and requires the player to set a new time limit using one of five choice buttons (four firsts buttons: 15, 30, 45 or 60 minutes; fifth button: cash out, which prints a receipt and ends the gambling session). As the EGM cannot track who is playing, there are no limits on consecutive gambling sessions. When the player's bank meter reaches $0, the the pop-up described above appears as soon as new money is inserted in the EGM, no matter if the previous time limit is up or not.

Prevention pop-up messages; Regular gambling session control

Responsible gambling information BEHAVIORAL

Located in a submenu accessed through a button on the main touch screen. This open a window which contains basic information on randomness and responsible gambling advice. The information is presented in small white font on a black background.

Prevention pop-up messages; Regular gambling session control

Electronic gambling machine (model IGT GL20) DEVICE

EGM model currently in use in Quebec, Canada, the location where this study is conducted. The EGMs used in this study are fully functional and unaltered except for the presentation of prevention pop-up messages in the experimental arm of this study. These machines are equipped with basics responsible gambling features, the two main ones described in this section (i.e. "Mandatory time limit"; "Responsible gambling information"). Wins/losses sequence is fully randomized and not determined beforehand.

Also known as: EGM

Prevention pop-up messages; Regular gambling session control

Square terminal DEVICE

This terminal allows for buying non-alcoholic beverages (soft drinks or coffee) and chips during the experimentation. This is done to enhance the realism of the bar setting. It also allows for real cash withdrawal from bank account during gambling session. Quebec's code of conduct for EGMs commercialization prohibits retailers from having an ATM near their EGMs, and prohibits them from lending money to consumers or withdrawing cash for them to gamble. However, this rule is not always followed in practice. For this study, participants will be allowed to withdraw from their bank account, at the bar counter, if they ask for it. However, this will not be offered to them upfront.

Prevention pop-up messages; Regular gambling session control

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Gender Eligibility Details: Participants are free to self-identify to their prefered gender. Options are "male", "female" or "other".
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• At least 18 years old (legal age to gamble in Quebec, Canada, where the study is conducted)
• Functional literacy in french (study is conducted in french and requires reading and understanding simple texts)
• Having played EGMs and least once every two weeks for the past 12 months

You may not qualify if:

• Classified as a probable pathological gambler (score ≥ 8 on the PGSI)
• Currently receiving treatment for problem gambling

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Benjamin Galipeau: lead
• Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture: collaborator
• Fonds pour la prévention et le traitement du jeu: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Centre québécois d'excellence pour la prévention et le traitement du jeu

Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada

RECRUITING

Related Publications (22)

• Dillard JP, Shen L. On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication monographs. 2005; 72(2): 144-168.

  BACKGROUND

• Ferris J, Wynne H. The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final Report. 2001. https://www.greo.ca/Modules/EvidenceCentre/files/Ferris%20et%20al(2001)The_Canadian_Problem_Gambling_Index.pdf

  BACKGROUND

• Delfabbro P, King DL, Browne M, Dowling NA. Do EGMs have a Stronger Association with Problem Gambling than Racing and Casino Table Games? Evidence from a Decade of Australian Prevalence Studies. J Gambl Stud. 2020 Jun;36(2):499-511. doi: 10.1007/s10899-020-09950-5.

  PMID: 32306234 BACKGROUND

• Bjorseth B, Simensen JO, Bjornethun A, Griffiths MD, Erevik EK, Leino T, Pallesen S. The Effects of Responsible Gambling Pop-Up Messages on Gambling Behaviors and Cognitions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jan 25;11:601800. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.601800. eCollection 2020.

  PMID: 33569015 BACKGROUND

• Ginley MK, Whelan JP, Pfund RA, Peter SC, Meyers AW. Warning messages for electronic gambling machines: evidence for regulatory policies. Addiction Research & Theory. 2017; 25(6): 495-504. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2017.1321740

  BACKGROUND

• Livingstone C, Rintoul A, Francis L. What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues? Evidence Base: A Journal of Evidence Reviews in Key Policy Areas. 2014; (2), 1-24. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.

  BACKGROUND

• Williams RJ, West BL, Simpson RI. Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence and identified best practices. 2012. https://opus.uleth.ca/bitstream/handle/10133/3121/2012-PREVENTION-OPGRC.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

  BACKGROUND

• MacLaren VV. Video Lottery is the Most Harmful Form of Gambling in Canada. J Gambl Stud. 2016 Jun;32(2):459-85. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9560-z.

  PMID: 26233645 BACKGROUND

• Papineau E, Lacroix G, Sevigny S, Biron JF, Corneau-Tremblay N, Lemétayer F. Assessing the differential impacts of online, mixed, and offline gambling. International Gambling Studies. 2018; 18(1): 69-91. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2017.1378362

  BACKGROUND

• Billieux J, Van der Linden M, Khazaal Y, Zullino D, Clark L. Trait gambling cognitions predict near-miss experiences and persistence in laboratory slot machine gambling. Br J Psychol. 2012 Aug;103(3):412-27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02083.x. Epub 2011 Oct 24.

  PMID: 22804705 BACKGROUND

• Blaszczynski A, Cowley E, Anthony C, Hinsley K. Breaks in Play: Do They Achieve Intended Aims? J Gambl Stud. 2016 Jun;32(2):789-800. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9565-7.

  PMID: 26275785 BACKGROUND

• Floyd K, Whelan JP, Meyers AW. Use of warning messages to modify gambling beliefs and behavior in a laboratory investigation. Psychol Addict Behav. 2006 Mar;20(1):69-74. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.1.69.

  PMID: 16536667 BACKGROUND

• Harris A, Parke A. The Interaction of Gambling Outcome and Gambling Harm-Minimisation Strategies for Electronic Gambling: the Efficacy of Computer Generated Self-Appraisal Messaging. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2016; 14(4): 597-617. doi: 10.1007/s11469-015-9581-y

  BACKGROUND

• Cloutier M, Ladouceur R, Sevigny S. Responsible gambling tools: pop-up messages and pauses on video lottery terminals. J Psychol. 2006 Sep;140(5):434-8. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.140.5.434-438.

  PMID: 17066750 BACKGROUND

• Kim HS, Wohl MJ, Stewart MJ, Sztainert T, Gainsbury SM. Limit your time, gamble responsibly: Setting a time limit (via pop-up message) on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device. International Gambling Studies. 2014; 14(2): 266-278. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2014.910244

  BACKGROUND

• Ladouceur R, Sévigny S. Interactive messages on video lottery terminals and persistence in gambling. Gambling Research. 2003; 15(1): 44-49.

  BACKGROUND

• Brandt AE, Sztykiel H, Pietras CJ. Laboratory simulated gambling: risk varies across participant-stake procedure. J Gen Psychol. 2013 Apr-Jun;140(2):130-43. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2013.776509.

  PMID: 24837532 BACKGROUND

• Anderson G, Brown RI. Real and laboratory gambling, sensation-seeking and arousal. Br J Psychol. 1984 Aug;75 ( Pt 3):401-10. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01910.x.

  PMID: 6487928 BACKGROUND

• Ladouceur R, Gaboury A, Bujold A, Lachance N, Tremblay S. Ecological validity of laboratory studies of videopoker gaming. J Gambl Stud. 1991 Jun;7(2):109-16. doi: 10.1007/BF01014526.

  PMID: 24242983 BACKGROUND

• Weatherly JN, Brandt AE. Participants' sensitivity to percentage payback and credit value when playing a slot-machine simulation. Behavior and Social Issues. 2004; 13(1): 33-51.doi: 10.5210/bsi.v13i1.34

  BACKGROUND

• Weatherly JN, McDougall CL, Gillis AA. A bird in hand: discouraging gambling on a slot machine simulation. J Psychol. 2006 Jul;140(4):347-61. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.140.4.347-361.

  PMID: 16967741 BACKGROUND

• Weatherly JN, Meier E. Studying gambling experimentally: The value of money. Analysis of Gambling Behavior. 2007; 1(2): article 5. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb/vol1/iss2/5

  BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Gambling; Harm Reduction; Communication

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Risk-Taking; Behavior; Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders; Mental Disorders

Study Officials

• Benjamin Galipeau

  Laval University

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Central Study Contacts

CQEPTJ

CONTACT

1 866 677-5389; recrutementJEUX@psy.ulaval.ca

Benjamin Galipeau

CONTACT

benjamin.galipeau.1@ulaval.ca

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT
• Masking Details: Participants are recruited under the false pretense of evaluating the realism of a gambling session in a laboratory replicating a bar environment. While the participants in the experimental group should notice the novel prevention messages, before debriefing, for all they know, there are no groups to be assigned to. Therefore they would not be aware, that there are two different groups, nor that this study tests the effects of prevention pop-up messages. Note that masking becomes "open label" after debriefing. Indeed, after being informed of the true goals of this study, participants will easily be able to determine in which group they were assigned based on what occured during their gambling session. Though, gambling behaviours are recorded before debriefing and won't be affected by unmasking. There is no functional way to mask group assignment to the members of the research team. However, the randomization procedure assures that allocation is purely random.
• Purpose: PREVENTION
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Ph.D. candidate

Model Details: Stratified block randomization assignment. Blocks are size 4 and strata are divided on problem gambling severity using PGSI categories. Two conditions: * Experimental: Regular gambling session + Prevention pop-up messages * Active Comparator: Regular gambling session Three assessment phases: * Pre-experiment. Telephone interview before the gambling session. Measures baseline characteristics and schedule the gambling session. Usually done within a couple of days following an application to participate. * Experiment. Gambling session in the laboratory. Behaviour is continuously measured starting with the first time the participant puts money in the EGM to participant choosing to end their gambling session. Duration is limited to 2 hrs (unbeknownst to participant). Session is scheduled days to weeks after the Pre-experiment, depending on participant's availability. * Post-experiment. Debriefing and post-experiment interview. Done right after the gambling session is ended.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 14, 2024
• First Posted: April 2, 2024
• Study Start: February 27, 2024
• Primary Completion: December 1, 2025
• Study Completion: February 1, 2026
• Last Updated: April 1, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-03

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

CA (1)