1 School of Health, Medical, and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University , Branyan, QLD, Australia.
J Behav Addict. 2017 Sep 1;6(3):317-320. doi: 10.1556/2006.6.2017.059. Epub 2017 Sep 11.
In their critical review of the prevention paradox (PP) applied to gambling-related harm, Delfabbro and King (2017) raise a number of concerns regarding specific assumptions, methods, and findings as well as the general conceptual approach. Besides discussing the PP, the review also considers the merits of considering a "continuum of harm," as opposed to the more traditional categorical approach to classifying problem gamblers. Their critique is carefully modulated and balanced, and starts a useful dialogue in the context of a public health approach to gambling. Unfortunately, some of Delfabbro and King's (2017) arguments rest on the treatment of gambling harm as a binary state and conflates gambling-related harm with disordered gambling. In this reply, we argue that the application of PP logic to gambling harm has not yet been addressed by us, and is only indirectly related to the more important objective of understanding how gambling can reduce ones' quality of life.
在他们对应用于赌博相关伤害的预防悖论（PP）的批判性评论中，Delfabbro 和 King（2017）提出了一些关于具体假设、方法和发现以及一般概念方法的担忧。除了讨论 PP 之外，该评论还考虑了考虑“伤害连续体”的优点，而不是传统的将问题赌徒分类的分类方法。他们的批评是经过精心调节和平衡的，并在赌博的公共卫生方法的背景下开启了有益的对话。不幸的是，Delfabbro 和 King（2017）的一些论点基于将赌博伤害视为二元状态，并将与赌博相关的伤害与赌博障碍混为一谈。在这篇回复中，我们认为，PP 逻辑在赌博伤害方面的应用尚未得到我们的关注，并且仅与更重要的目标间接相关，即了解赌博如何降低一个人的生活质量。
