Centre of Excellence in Game Culture Studies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Gamification Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Room B2125, Pinni B, Kanslerinrinne 1, 33100, Tampere, Finland.
BMC Public Health. 2023 Oct 16;23(1):2012. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16917-9.
Gambling regulated through a state monopoly is often justified for reasons of public health, that is, that monopolies are a more effective means of reducing potential harm. This focus on harm prevention has increased in recent years, particularly as a result of pressures arising from the growth of online gambling and of legislation designed to promote competition. While prior works have examined the role of stakeholders in influencing policy decisions and in public discussions of the monopoly systems, attention has been focused on those with direct financial interests; the opinions of the public have largely been absent from these discussions. In 2017 Finland restructured its monopoly order to improve efficacy of addressing gambling related harms; this restructuring offers a valuable insight into public perceptions of and attitudes toward the suitability of the Finnish system to address gambling-related harm.
This work uses Structural Equation Modelling and compares attitudes toward the Finnish system between 2015 (pre-restructuring) and 2019 (post-restructuring).
Overall public opinion of the Finnish system as being suitable for addressing gambling harms declined between 2015 and 2019, despite the restructuring. Several predictors of attitudes were identified, however, the majority had small effect sizes, while the model explained little variance.
This work concludes that existing approaches to examining public opinions of gambling regulation should be amended to include additional predictors. Furthermore, it is likely that context-specific predictors should be included in models, in order to reflect the socio-cultural history of the population being investigated. Such predictors should be determined in respect to the population of interest but, for example, could include items measuring trust in authority, political orientation, cultural acceptance of gambling, or religious affiliation.
出于公共卫生的考虑，通过国家垄断来监管赌博通常是合理的，即垄断是减少潜在危害的更有效手段。近年来，这种对危害预防的关注有所增加，尤其是由于在线赌博的增长以及旨在促进竞争的立法所带来的压力。尽管之前的研究已经考察了利益相关者在影响政策决策和垄断制度的公共讨论中的作用，但关注的重点是那些具有直接财务利益的人；公众的意见在这些讨论中基本上没有得到体现。2017 年，芬兰重组了其垄断秩序，以提高解决赌博相关危害的效力；这种重组为了解公众对芬兰制度解决赌博相关危害的适宜性的看法和态度提供了宝贵的见解。
本研究使用结构方程模型，并比较了 2015 年（重组前）和 2019 年（重组后）公众对芬兰系统的态度。
尽管进行了重组，但公众对芬兰系统作为解决赌博危害的适宜性的总体看法在 2015 年至 2019 年期间下降了。然而，确定了几个态度的预测因素，但大多数因素的效应大小较小，而模型解释的方差较小。
本研究的结论是，现有的审查公众对赌博监管看法的方法应该进行修订，以包括其他预测因素。此外，在模型中纳入特定于上下文的预测因素可能是必要的，以反映所调查人群的社会文化历史。这些预测因素应该根据感兴趣的人群来确定，但例如，可以包括衡量对权威的信任、政治取向、对赌博的文化接受程度或宗教信仰的项目。
