The feasibility and acceptability of an inoculative intervention video for gambling advertising: a focus group study of academics and experts-by-experience
- PMID: 39101514
- PMCID: PMC11637607
- DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdae167
The feasibility and acceptability of an inoculative intervention video for gambling advertising: a focus group study of academics and experts-by-experience
Abstract
Background: Gambling advertising employs a range of persuasive strategies. We therefore aimed to evaluate a counter-advertising intervention video to increase resilience to gambling advertising persuasion.
Methods: Three in-depth focus groups were conducted, and each group contained a mixture of gambling-related academics (N = 12) and experts with lived experience of gambling-related harm (N = 10). Participants were given access to the intervention video and provided feedback during the focus groups. Qualitative data were audio recorded and thematically analysed by the research team.
Results: Three main themes were identified. First, participants recommended a shorter video that had a simplified and digestible structure. Second, frequent real-world examples of gambling advertisements within the video were discouraged, and the inclusion of a relatable human voiceover was considered imperative to the receptiveness of the video. Finally, participants deemed it important to deliver psychologically grounded yet jargon-free content via a conversational style. An overall narrative framed by consumer-protection was also preferred in order to increase acceptance of the video content, rather than a more didactic framing.
Conclusions: Evaluating the acceptability of a counter advertising intervention video provided valuable insight from both an academic and lived-experience perspective. Such insight is instrumental to the meaningful co-design of counter-advertising interventions.
Keywords: focus groups; gambling advertising; gambling marketing; inoculation; lived experience.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.
Conflict of interest statement
In the last three years, Jamie Torrance has received; (1) PhD funding from GambleAware, an independent charity who receive voluntary donations from the gambling industry, (2) Open access publication funding from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO), (3) Paid consultancy fees from Channel 4, (4) Conference travel and accommodation funding from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG), (5) A minor exploratory research grant from the ASFG and GREO. Other than GambleAware, none of Jamie Torrance’s previous funding sources involved voluntary donations from the gambling industry over this time period. Philip Newall is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling–an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain. In the last three years, Philip Newall has contributed to research projects funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, Clean Up Gambling (a not-for-profit campaign), Gambling Research Australia, NSW Responsible Gambling Fund, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. Philip Newall has received travel and accommodation funding from Alberta Gambling Research Institute and the Economic and Social Research Institute and received open access fee funding from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario. None of Philip Newall’s funding sources over this time period involved voluntary donations from the gambling industry. Conor Heath and Marie O’Hanrahan have no disclosures to make.
Similar articles
-
The effect of a brief intervention video on gambling advertising resistance: Results of a randomized, on-line experimental study.Addiction. 2025 May;120(5):1028-1039. doi: 10.1111/add.16732. Epub 2025 Jan 14. Addiction. 2025. PMID: 39809302 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
"It's changing our lives, not for the better. It's important that we have a say". The role of young people in informing public health and policy decisions about gambling marketing.BMC Public Health. 2024 Jul 26;24(1):2004. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19331-x. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39060997 Free PMC article.
-
Can counter-advertising diminish persuasive effects of conventional and pseudo-healthy unhealthy food product advertising on parents?: an experimental study.BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 25;20(1):1781. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09881-1. BMC Public Health. 2020. PMID: 33238936 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Emergent gambling advertising; a rapid review of marketing content, delivery and structural features.BMC Public Health. 2021 Apr 14;21(1):718. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10805-w. BMC Public Health. 2021. PMID: 33849493 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Strategies to customize responsible gambling messages: a review and focus group study.BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 17;18(1):1381. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6281-0. BMC Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30558568 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
The effect of a brief intervention video on gambling advertising resistance: Results of a randomized, on-line experimental study.Addiction. 2025 May;120(5):1028-1039. doi: 10.1111/add.16732. Epub 2025 Jan 14. Addiction. 2025. PMID: 39809302 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Australian Communications and Media Authority . Gambling advertising in Australia: placement and spending. Australian Government. 2023. https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2023-10/report/gambling-advertising....
-
- Statista . Gambling advertising spending in the United States from 2021 to 2023. 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1350628/online-gambling-ad-spend-usa/.
-
- GambleAware . Gambling advertising and marketing spend in Great Britain 2014–2017. Regulus Partners. 2018. https://about.gambleaware.org/media/1853/2018-11-24-rp-ga-gb-marketing-s....
-
- Newall P, Moodie C, Reith G. et al. Gambling marketing from 2014 to 2018: a literature review. Curr Addict Rep 2019;6(2):49–56.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical