You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Problem gambling and associated mental health concerns in elite athletes: a narrative review
  1. Jeffrey Lee Derevensky1,
  2. David McDuff2,
  3. Claudia L Reardon3,
  4. Brian Hainline4,
  5. Mary E Hitchcock5,
  6. Jeremie Richard1
  1. 1 Educational and Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  2. 2 Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  3. 3 Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  4. 4 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  5. 5 Ebling Library for the Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jeffrey Lee Derevensky, Educational and Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A1Y2, Canada; jeffrey.derevensky{at}mcgill.ca

Abstract

Opportunities to participate in gambling have dramatically changed during the past 20 years. Casinos have proliferated as have electronic gambling machines, lotteries, sports betting, and most recently online gambling. Gambling among the general population has moved from being perceived negatively to a socially acceptable pastime. As over 80% of individuals have reported gambling for money during their lifetime, governments recognise that regulating gambling—a multibillion dollar industry—is a significant source of revenue. While the vast majority of individuals engaged in some form of gambling have no or few gambling-related problems, an identifiable proportion of both adolescents and adults experience significant gambling-related problems. Elite athletes have not been immune to the lure of gambling nor its concomitant problems. Prevalence studies suggest higher rates of gambling problems among athletes than the general population. In this narrative review, we examine several risk factors associated with gambling problems among elite athletes and new forms of gambling that may be problematic for this population. Given the potential serious mental health and performance consequences associated with a gambling disorder for athletes, we aim to increase coaches’, athletic directors’ and health professionals’ knowledge concerning the importance of screening and treatment referrals.

  • psychiatry
  • psychology
  • disorder

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-100668

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    While gambling is a relatively understudied topic in general, this is especially the case for gambling and gambling problems in elite athletes. Thus, this narrative review seeks to summarise the existing literature on gambling problems in elite athletes, including information on symptoms and diagnosis, prevalence, risk factors, differences across various demographic groups and levels of elite competition, forms of gambling, and management.

    We searched five electronic databases (PubMed (MEDLINE), SPORTDiscus via EBSCO, PsycINFO via ProQuest, Scopus and Cochrane) from inception to November 2018. Search terms relating to mental health disorders, sports participation, the elite nature of participation and gambling were combined. Articles must have been available in English. To avoid missing relevant publications, references of the included studies were screened, as well as relevant reports. Elite athletes were defined as those competing at professional, Olympic or collegiate/university levels.

    Symptoms and diagnosis

    Currently, gambling disorder is viewed as a ‘non-substance-related disorder’ within the ‘substance-related and addictive disorders’ section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5).1 As such, gambling disorder is conceptualised as a persistent and recurrent gambling behaviour leading to clinically significant impairment or distress experienced by the individual.1 To be clinically diagnosed with a gambling disorder, this behaviour may not be better explained by a manic episode. As such, according to the DSM-5,1 the individual with gambling disorder exhibits four or more of the symptoms (during a 12-month period) listed in box 1.

    Box 1

    Diagnostic criteria for a gambling disorder1

    • Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired level of excitement.

    • Is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling.

    • Has made repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back or stop gambling.

    • Is often preoccupied with gambling (including persistent thoughts of reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next gambling venture, and/or thinking of ways with which to gamble).

    • Often gambles when feeling distress (eg, helplessness, guilty, anxious, depressed).

    • After losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even (chasing one’s losses).

    • Lies to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling.

    • Has jeopardised or lost a significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of gambling.

    • Relies on others to provide money to relieve desperate financial situations caused by gambling.

    Each of the nine DSM-5 diagnostic criteria are weighted equally despite differences in the severity of consequences.1 No single constellation of symptom endorsements from among the nine DSM-5 symptoms exists among disordered gamblers. However, it is not unusual for help-seeking disordered gamblers in treatment to endorse eight or nine of the criteria; the higher the number of endorsements, the more severe the disorder.2

    Sports wagering

    Sports wagering consists of betting on individual sporting events or contests, through fantasy sports (seasonal or daily), or on individual players or events through prop bets or inplay sports betting.3 4 It may occur among peers, through a bookmaker (individuals accepting illegal wagers or gaming operators where legal) or through online sites. Sports wagering has grown in popularity, with the total amount of money wagered yearly increasing.3 5–9 A US consumer survey revealed that 42% of adults report having placed a sports wager during their lifetime,10 with 4% doing so regularly.10

    More jurisdictions are approving sports wagering legislation in the USA since the recent Supreme Court ruling (May 2018)11 permitting states to pass legislation that permits sports wagering. Currently, more than 20 US states have legislation permitting or about to permit regulated sports wagering. The prevalence of online sports wagering has increased in many jurisdictions, likely accounting for its significant growth.12 13 In 2017, over 12 million Europeans had an active online account with members of the European Gaming and Betting Association, equivalent to 2.4% of Europe’s total population.14 Online and mobile operations represented 20.7% of the total gambling activity, with sports wagering being the most popular form of online gambling (40.3%).14 Gambling operators continue to expand their online platforms to include mobile gambling, with research suggesting that mobile gambling is especially popular among problem gamblers.15

    Results from Australia suggest that young male internet sports bettors are particularly vulnerable to gambling problems if they held positive attitudes towards gambling sponsors who imbedded promotions into their sports broadcasts.6 Since the 2018 US Supreme Court ruling, major international gambling operators have formed sports wagering partnerships with the professional sports leagues, including Major League Baseball, NBA, Women’s National Basketball Association and NHL.16 17

    Collegiate and professional e-sports (competitive video-gaming) have become more organised and grown in popularity.18 19 Since their establishment in the early 2000s, professional and club e-sports have seen a rapid growth in both participation and viewership,20 21 with some universities offering scholarships for top players.19 Gambling operators have capitalised on this market by offering opportunities to wager on specific player and/or teams.

    Fantasy sports wagering

    Fantasy sports, representing one form of sports wagering, are typically online activities where participants assemble virtual teams of real players. These teams then compete against other teams based on the statistical performance of the players. In a sense, individuals become managers, drafting, trading or dropping players during a season. Team performance is typically converted into points, with the individual having the most points being declared the winner. While fantasy sports wagering initially began as a competition among friends, it has evolved into an online competition with individuals wagering money that their team and players will be superior to others. Originally based on a season, online gambling operators developed daily fantasy sports (DFS) to increase the frequency of betting. DFS contests are played across shorter periods of time (eg, a week), rather than an entire season. Recent reports from the Fantasy Sports Trade Association22 estimate that 57.4 million people participated in fantasy sports wagering in the USA and Canada, an increase from 13.5 million in 2004. In Australia, there are an estimated 1.65 million fantasy sports players despite the ability to legally gamble on non-fantasy sports,23 with participation in some form of DFS doubling from 31% in 2012 to 64% in 2015 (39% of fantasy sports players primarily using a mobile device to participate).22 The widespread participation in DFS has become a cultural phenomenon and may have been increased by the nearly $206 million spent on advertising by the two largest DFS companies in 2015.24 25

    Although there is still debate concerning whether fantasy sports wagering should be considered ‘gambling’ versus ‘skill’, DFS players have been characterised by high gambling frequency and gambling-related problems.26 Nower and colleagues27 reported that 22.4% of adults engaged in DFS, with most being between the ages of 25 and 34 (61%), married or living with a partner (62.7%), and having a college or postgraduate degree (46%). Overall, 95% of DFS players were reported to be high-frequency gamblers in general and were identified as high-risk problem gamblers.

    In a study examining collegiate athlete participation in fantasy sports, Marchica and Derevensky28 reported that among fantasy sports players, 48.1% of men and 25% of women could be identified as at risk for a serious gambling problem or had already reached the clinical criteria for disordered gambling. In a study of over 7000 Ohio high school students, Marchica et al 29 reported that 13.5% reported wagering money on sports teams, 7.3% wagered money on fantasy sports, and 5.1% had bet on DFS. Among individuals who participated in fantasy sports more than once per month, 36% of men and 59% of women were considered at risk for a gambling problem.

    Inplay live action wagering

    Technological advances have continued to change gambling practices. One of the more innovative forms of online sports wagering is inplay/prop sports bets, where individuals can wager on specific events (eg, which team or player will have the most points in a given time frame) or players (eg, who will score first) within a sporting event. Inplay betting has been instrumental in the growth ofsports wagering.30 31 The structural characteristics of inplay sports betting have changed the mechanics of sports wagering. Factors such as bet frequency (the number of bets placed within a given time period), event frequency (the number of gambling events available to bet on in a given period) and payout frequency (the frequency of payouts) have greatly impacted individual gambling behaviours.32 33

    Inplay betting has also allowed athletes potentially greater control over the outcome of certain events (eg, individuals can bet against themselves in a relatively anonymous manner using different online accounts). Inplay betting has significant implications for the integrity of sporting events and could be more harmful than other forms of gambling given the associated inherent structural characteristics. Out of 338 online gambling websites assessed, 26% offered at least one inplay betting feature,33 and inplay betting features were accessible via a mobile device in 87.5% of the websites visited.33 While the UK Gambling Commission34 concluded that individuals who make inplay bets are at a greater risk of harm, they failed to enact legislation prohibiting or restricting this type of wager.

    Advertising

    Concerns have been reported for vulnerable populations (ie, youth, problem gamblers) who seem to engage in more online gambling when watching betting commercials.35 On-screen displays of odds integrated into the narration accompanied by messages highlighting the ease of placing a wager, risk-free bonuses and the use of attractive hostesses have been found to be associated with increased wagering.36 Australian researchers reported that 20% of children ages 5–12 associated their favourite team with a corporate gambling sponsor.37 Lopez-Gonzalez et al,31 38 39 analysing a sample of British and Spanish sports betting advertisements, found inplay wagering in almost half of all advertisements. While stricter advertising regulations have become more commonplace in certain jurisdictions, in the USA major media networks have proposed developing gambling-related shows to accompany sports events.40

    Prevalence and risk factors associated with problem/disordered gambling among college students

    A number of large-scale epidemiological studies suggest that 75%–80% of the general population of college students report having gambled within the past year,41–43 with 6% of college students being identified as disordered gamblers and an additional 10% being problem gamblers (not reaching the clinical criteria for disordered gambler).44 Blinn-Pike et al’s43 earlier meta-analysis suggested that 7.89% of college students are disordered gamblers (prevalence data from studies ranged from 5.37% to 10.41%). As a result, millions of college students worldwide are experiencing at least some gambling-related problems.

    College students have been found to engage in virtually all forms of regulated and non-regulated gambling, including lotteries, card games, sports wagering, fantasy sports wagering, casino gambling, online gambling and wagering on e-sports.45 Similar to the general adult population, male college students appear to be more likely than female college students to experience gambling-related problems, with gender being one of the strongest predictors of gambling interest, participation and disorders according to international research.9 24 29 41 46–48 Male college students tend to prefer more competitive and skill-based forms of gambling,49 whereas female college students prefer more luck-based/non-strategic forms of gambling (eg, slot machines and lotteries).50–52

    Online gambling and sports wagering have both been identified as significant risk factors for increased involvement in gambling among college students28 45 53 54 and non-college adults.6 7 54 Other risk factors for gambling include impulsivity, maladaptive coping strategies, high sensation-seeking, risk-taking and social anxiety.55–58

    To better understand the motivations for gambling among college students, Neighbors et al 59 asked college student gamblers (N=184) to articulate the reasons underlying their gambling behaviours. The primary motivations included winning money (42.7%), enjoyment/fun (23%), social reasons (11.2%), excitement (7.3%), winning (3.9%) and competition (3.4%).

    Problem/Disordered gambling among collegiate athletes

    Collegiate athletes represent a significant subpopulation of college students. In the USA alone, over 485 000 college students participate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sanctioned athletics yearly.60 Similar to their peers, collegiate athletes engage in interrelated high-risk behaviours, including heavy alcohol use, substance use and gambling.61–65 Studies of prevalence rates of problem gambling among collegiate athletes suggest that the rates of disordered gambling are significant, ranging from 2.9% to 15%,61 66–70 with men having considerably higher rates of problem or disordered gambling than women.61 71 72

    Huang and colleagues69 70 reported that collegiate athletes who gamble were far more likely to engage in risky behaviours or experience mental health symptoms, including past month episodic heavy drinking, marijuana and other illicit drug use, eating disorders, cigarette use, and past year unprotected sex. In addition, collegiate athletes who gamble experience significantly more alcohol/drug-related problems compared with non-gamblers.69 70 Nearly all these risky behaviours increased as gambling severity increased. For example, past month heavy episodic drinking for non-gambling collegiate athletes was 51.7%, compared with 76.6% for social gamblers (occasional gamblers), 85.5% for problem gamblers (endorsing some gambling-related problems) and 82.3% for disordered gamblers. The same held true for marijuana use (7.5% for non-gamblers, 16.5% social gamblers, 30.2% problem gamblers and 35.2% disordered gamblers), drug use (3.8%, 6.6%, 11.0% and 18.7%, respectively), binge eating (2.0%, 2.7%, 4.9% and 8.3%, respectively), unprotected sex (34.2%, 45.4%, 57.3% and 59.1%, respectively) and cigarette use (7.4%, 11.5%, 17.0% and 29.7%, respectively). As in studies of general and treatment-seeking populations, the association between problem/disordered gambling and risky behaviours in collegiate athletes was generally higher in men than in women.69 70

    Since 2004, the NCAA has been monitoring collegiate athletes’ gambling behaviours. In the most recent cross-sectional analyses examining data from 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 samples (almost 85 000 student athletes), men (55%) were found to be consistently engaged in all gambling activities at higher rates than women (38%) int 2016. Overall gambling participation rates were found to have decreased over the 12-year span possibly due to the education and prevention efforts by NCAA staff and member schools. During this span, the proportion of male collegiate athletes at risk for or meeting clinical criteria for disordered gambling similarly decreased from 4% in 2004 to 1.8% in 2016, while rates remained relatively constant among women at <1% across all years.72

    Volberg and colleagues73 and the Australian Productivity Commission9 both have highlighted multiple prevalence studies indicating that gambling by collegiate athletes begins prior to college. In the 2016 study, Paskus and Derevensky60 reported that most male collegiate athletes who indicated past year gambling first reported gambling either before or during high school. Among women, most reported initial gambling in high school or in college.60

    Gambling activities, sports wagering and problem gambling among male collegiate athletes

    The overall reduction in gambling participation rates among male collegiate athletes from 2004 to 2016 is reflected across most types of gambling activities (table 1). Sports wagering among male collegiate athletes continued to be popular, with 24.4% reporting engaging in sports wagering during the past year and 8.9% reporting doing so monthly. Although rates of past year sports wagering did not increase in 2016 compared with 2012, rates of monthly engagement in sports wagering increased, although marginally. The activity that showed the largest decrease over time was playing cards for money, with 46.8% of men engaging in this activity over the past year in 2004 and 22.9% in 2016. Monthly engagement in card playing also decreased notably over the 12-year span. Furthermore, although rates of past year internet casino gambling increased from 2004 to 2008, it has steadily decreased from 2008 to 2016. Richard et al 72 suggested that the wording of the question on the survey resulted in low responses for internet gambling. College students may likely endorse participation in internet wagering only if they do so on a desktop computer, rather than mobile gambling (smartphone), although all such forms constitute wagering over the internet.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    NCAA male participation in gambling activities between 2004 and 20164 72

    Despite NCAA regulations prohibiting collegiate athletes from engaging in gambling activities related to intercollegiate or professional sporting events, sports wagering still appears to be a frequent activity among this population. Specifically, wagering on the NFL (65% of all collegiate athletes who engage in sports wagering) was the most common target of sports wagering, followed by NCAA basketball (55%).72 As for wagering on college games, the rates of participation remain low, with the lowest level of engagement for betting on games involving one’s own team.4 60 72

    Gambling activities, sports wagering and problem gambling among female collegiate athletes

    While overall rates of gambling participation among female collegiate athletes have decreased from 2004 (49%), they have remained relatively constant between 2008 and 2016 (39% in 2008, 39% in 2012, 38% in 2016) (table 2).60 72 Playing cards for money and betting on games of personal skill showed the largest decline among women. A small decrease was also observable for past year engagement in internet casino games. Rates of engagement in sports wagering are on a continuous decrease, with the lowest rates of past year (4.9%) and monthly (0.5%) participation being reported in 2016 in spite of increased availability and accessibility to gambling venues.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    NCAA women’s participation in various gambling activities between 2004 and 2016 (4, 72)

    Compared with men, sports wagering appears to be much less frequent among female collegiate athletes.60 72 For the few women betting on sports, the most common target of sports betting in 2016 was wagering on NCAA men’s basketball (44%) and on the NFL (44%).60 72 Additionally, betting on college games appears to be a rare event for women, with extremely low rates in 2016. Finally, only 3.1% of women in the 2016 survey reported fantasy league participation.

    Gambling among elite athletes (collegiate and non-collegiate)

    Elite athletes may be particularly susceptible to developing gambling problems given their age, the availability and accessibility of gambling venues, the social acceptability and glamorisation of gambling, their access to money through loans, credit cards and scholarships, their general risk-taking, their perceived knowledge of sports and awareness of injuries that might inform sports wagering, and their self-perceived invulnerability,45 74 all of which suggest easy engagement in widespread gambling opportunities.73

    A plethora of high-profile professional elite athletes have reportedly suffered from problematic gambling-related behaviours. Indeed, high-profile professional athletes in virtually all professional sports have readily admitted having gambling problems. Prominent gambling-related scandals within professional, collegiate and Olympic sports have been reported. Such problems include basketball point shaving scandals, rugby league and cricket betting scandals, and the 1919 Black Sox World Series gambling scandal, among others. Such activities have become commonplace among elite athletes worldwide,75–77 and sports wagering, through match fixing, has made the industry highly vulnerable to corruption.78 79 The sports betting market and athletes in particular have become susceptible to influence from organised crime syndicates.80

    Grall-Bronnec and colleagues,81 in their assessment of 1236 European professional athletes, reported that 56.6% of athletes had gambled during the previous year, with the prevalence of problem gambling being 8.2%, and with betting on one’s team, betting online and gambling regularly being associated with gambling problems. Betting on one’s team was specifically associated with current or past gambling problems. They concluded that professional athletes are particularly susceptible to both gambling and problem gambling. In yet another study comparing current, former and non-athletes, former (13.0%) and current professional and elite athletes (7.0%) scored higher on gambling severity screens and were more likely to be identified as disordered gamblers when compared with non-athletes (3.0%).82 Expanding on this research, Weiss and Loubier83 found that former professional and elite athletes tend to participate in ‘skill-based’ forms of gambling, including sports betting and poker, while also being more likely to wager on the sports in which they participate.

    Cultural/Ethnic considerations in problem/disordered gambling

    Although substantial empirical evidence supports the finding that male collegiate athletes engage in gambling more frequently and have more gambling-related problems than female peers, less research has gone into investigating the prevalence and characteristics of gambling disorder within different ethnic groups.84 Several studies of non-athletes in the USA, Canada and Australia85–92 reported higher prevalence rates of disordered gambling among Native Americans,89 92 Asians,86 93 Blacks and Hispanics90 compared with Caucasians. Relevant to collegiate athletes, Nowak’s review44 concluded that although only a limited number of studies have investigated the gambling behaviours among minority groups, and such groups tend to have higher rates of problem gambling.

    Mental health symptoms and disorders associated with problem/disordered gambling

    Problem and disordered gambling typically result in multiple negative outcomes, including risky behaviours, underperformance in roles and mental health disorders.94–96 Problem/disordered gamblers often experience decreased academic and athletic performance, engage in socially isolating behaviours, experience difficulties in social relationships, and are at heightened risk of suicidal ideation and attempts.74 97–99 They generally experience more intense anxiety, feelings of helplessness, irritability and depression.100 101 Similarly, they are more prone to substance use disorders, behavioural problems, familial and financial hardships, and poor work and school performance.102 103 According to the US National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, disordered gamblers had six times greater risk of alcohol abuse and 4.4 times greater risk for substance use disorder than non-gamblers.104 Studies of general population samples of problem gamblers revealed higher rates of nicotine dependence (60%), alcohol and substance use disorders (58%), mood disorders (38%), and anxiety disorders (37%).94 105 106 It has been estimated that over 96% of individuals with a significant gambling disorder have one or more mental health disorder, with 64% having three or more mental health disorders.107

    Unlike other mental health disorders, including some other addictive disorders, a gambling disorder can go undetected for some time. It is often referred to as a ‘hidden addiction’,45 108 yet the consequences can be pervasive. Gambling begins early in most cultures, yet few educational institutions have gambling prevention programmes for youth.109–111

    Management

    Given the potential severity of problem/disordered gambling and its association with serious mental health symptoms and disorders, comprehensive and expanded screening, brief interventions, and referrals for more comprehensive treatment are warranted.112 113 More universal screening and follow-up with treatment referrals for individuals with a gambling disorder are especially important.114 Coaches and athletic directors remain in a unique position to help promote prevention programmes and assist athletes who are experiencing gambling problems.

    Several studies point to the importance of coaches, athletic directors, college faculty and administrative personnel more closely addressing the issues related to gambling.61 71 As such, inservice training related to gambling disorders is warranted. In the 2016 NCAA survey, the three most effective ways to influence collegiate athletes not to wager on sports were by coaches, NCAA-imposed penalties and discussions with team mates.60 From a preventative perspective, more educational programmes are recommended.109 For collegiate athletes, it is important to allow those with a gambling problem to go on academic or athletic leave when recovery considerations predominate. Reasonable accommodations to attend off-campus treatment facilities or to take a medical leave may be warranted.

    While there are no approved regulatory pharmacological interventions for disordered gamblers, multiple controlled trials of various medications (eg, naltrexone, nalmefene, fluvoxamine) have shown efficacy.115–119 A number of meta-analyses of studies examining the use of pharmacological and behavioural treatments for disordered gambling have reported positive results,120–123 in particular the use of cognitive behavioural treatments.121 124 Hodgins and colleagues124 have also suggested that brief motivational treatments may be promising, while others have argued for the use of self-help groups (eg, Gamblers Anonymous).125–127 While both pharmacological and behavioural treatments are helpful, they require further research to assess their effectiveness for specific types of gamblers. Treating all problem gamblers as a homogeneous group has significant limitations.45

    Conclusions and recommendations

    Elite athletes may be particularly at risk of a gambling disorder as a result of their over-representation of young men, their high degree of competitiveness, high levels of sensation-seeking, impulsivity, increased risk-taking behaviours, and their perceived knowledge and information concerning sports and the health of team mates. Reported prevalence rates of gambling disorders among elite athletes typically are higher than their non-athletic peers. Gambling disorders are typically accompanied by multiple social, psychological, mental health and financial issues, all of which impact the individuals’ mental health and athletic performance.

    Only a few studies have assessed short-term and long-term effects of problem gambling among elite athletes. More research is necessary to determine the direct impact on athletic performance and whether athletes in certain sports are more prone to excessive gambling.60 While a gambling disorder is often a hidden addiction, the consequences can be devastating for elite athletes and the integrity of the sport.

    What is already known

    • Gambling activities continue to grow and newer forms of gambling (eg, online gambling) dominate the market.

    • Disordered gamblers, those who experience significant gambling-related problems, most often have concomitant mental health, and psychological and psychiatric issues.

    • Elite athletes are not immune to the lure of gambling.

    What are the new findings

    • Elite athletes are at a greater risk of gambling problems than the general population.

    • New forms of gambling (eg, online gambling, inplay gambling, prop bets) may be particularly problematic for elite athletes.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank the other participants in the 2018 IOC Consensus Meeting on Mental Health in Elite Athletes, including Cindy Miller Aron, David Baron, Antonia Baum, Abhinav Bindra, Richard Budgett, Niccolo Campriani, Joao Mauricio Castaldelli-Maia, Alan Currie, Lars Engebretsen, Ira Glick, Paul Filip Gorczynski, Vincent Gouttebarge, Michael Grandner, Doug Hyun Han, Margo Mountjoy, Aslihan Polat, Rosemary Purcell, Margot Putukian, Simon M Rice, Allen Sills, Torbjorn Soligard, Todd Stull, Leslie Swartz and Li Jing Zhu, for their input on the development and interpretation of this research.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. American Psychiatric Association
      . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, D.C, 2013.
    2. 2.↵
      2. Derevensky J
      . Annual treatment report for problem gambling in Florida Report prepared for the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling; 2018.
    3. 3.↵
      2. Mercier J ,
      3. Sévigny S ,
      4. Jacques C , et al
      . Sports bettors: a systematic review. J Gamb Iss 2018;38:203–68.
      OpenUrl
    4. 4.↵
      2. Winters K ,
      3. Derevensky J
      . A comprehensive review of sports wagering and gambling involvement Report prepared for the National Council on Problem Gambling; 2018.
    5. 5.↵
      2. Hing N ,
      3. Russell AM ,
      4. Browne M
      . Risk factors for gambling problems on online electronic gaming machines, race betting and sports betting. Front Psychol 2017;8.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00779
    6. 6.↵
      2. Hing N ,
      3. Russell AMT ,
      4. Lamont M , et al
      . BET anywhere, Anytime: an analysis of Internet sports Bettors' responses to gambling promotions during sports Broadcasts by problem gambling severity. J Gambl Stud 2017;33:1051–65.doi:10.1007/s10899-017-9671-9
      OpenUrl
    7. 7.↵
      2. Hing N ,
      3. Russell AMT ,
      4. Vitartas P , et al
      . Demographic, behavioural and normative risk factors for gambling problems amongst sports Bettors. J Gambl Stud 2016;32:625–41.doi:10.1007/s10899-015-9571-9
      OpenUrl
    8. 8.↵
      2. Gainsbury SM ,
      3. Russell A
      . Betting patterns for sports and races: a longitudinal analysis of online wagering in Australia. J Gambl Stud 2015;31:17–32.doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9415-4
      OpenUrl
    9. 9.↵
      1. Productivity Commission
      . Gambling productivity inquiry report. Australian Government; 2010.
    10. 10.↵
      1. Statista
      . Have you ever placed a BET on a sports event? Available: https://statista.com/statistics/661672/betting-on-sports-events-in-us/2017
    11. 11.↵
      1. Supreme Court of the United States
      . Murphy, Governor of New Jersey, et al. V, 2017. National collegiate athletics Assn. Available: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf;
    12. 12.↵
      2. Gainsbury SM
      . Review of self-exclusion from gambling venues as an intervention for problem gambling. J Gambl Stud 2014;30:229–51.doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9362-0
      OpenUrl
    13. 13.↵
      2. Rodriguez P ,
      3. Humphreys B ,
      4. Simmons R
      . Economics of sports betting. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.
    14. 14.↵
      1. EGBA (European Gaming & Betting Association)
      . Leading the way in popular digital entertainment: data abstracted from H2 gambling capital 2018.
    15. 15.↵
      2. Lopez-Gonzalez H ,
      3. Estévez A ,
      4. Griffiths MD
      . Internet-based structural characteristics of sports betting and problem gambling severity: is there a relationship? Int J Ment Health Addict 2018;31:1–14.doi:10.1007/s11469-018-9876-x
      OpenUrl
    16. 16.↵
      2. Allen B
      . FanDuel becomes NHL's second official betting partner. Available: https://egr.global/northamerica/news/fanduel-becomes-nhls-second-official-betting-partner/2018
    17. 17.↵
      2. Stutz H
      . MGM resorts, major league baseball announce sports wagering Partnership Agreement CDC Gaming Reports; 2018.
    18. 18.↵
      2. Flaherty C
      . Cutting academic programs, spending on esports, 2018. Available: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/08/20/cutting-academic-programs-spending-esports;
    19. 19.↵
      2. Bauer-Wolf J
      . Video games as a college sport, 2017. Available: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/09/esports-quickly-expanding-colleges;
    20. 20.↵
      2. Smith N
      . eSports catching fire at Ohio state. Washington Post 2018.
    21. 21.↵
      2. Pannekeet J
      . Newzoo: Global esports economy will reach $905.6 million in 2018 as brand investment grows by 48%, 2018. Available: https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoo-global-esports-economy-will-reach-905-6-million-2018-brand-investment-grows-48/;
    22. 22.↵
      1. Fantasy Sport Trade Association (FSTA)
      . 2018 FSTA research, 2018. Available: https://fsta.org/research/fsta-research-reports/;
    23. 23.↵
      2. Pickering D
      . What the rise of daily fantasy sports will mean for problem gambling, 2017. Available: http://theconversation.com/what-the-rise-of-daily-fantasy-sports-will-mean-for-problem-gambling-79998;
    24. 24.↵
      2. Derevensky J ,
      3. Marchica L
      . Fantasy sports wagering: is it a concern and does it require More regulation? gambling law review: economics, regulation, compliance. and Policy 2018;22:55–60.
      OpenUrl
    25. 25.↵
      2. Kludt T
      . DraftKings and FanDuel ads seem to be everywhere on TV because they are, 2015 Retrieved from. Available: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/media/fanduel-draftkings-commercials/index.html;
    26. 26.↵
      2. Nower L ,
      3. Caler KR ,
      4. Pickering D , et al
      . Daily fantasy sports players: gambling, addiction, and mental health problems. J Gambl Stud 2018;34:727–37.doi:10.1007/s10899-018-9744-4
      OpenUrl
    27. 27.↵
      2. Nower L ,
      3. Volberg R ,
      4. Caler K
      . The prevalence of Online and land-based gambling in New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Gambling Studies, Rutgers University, 2017.
    28. 28.↵
      2. Marchica L ,
      3. Derevensky J
      . Fantasy sports: a growing concern among college student-athletes. Int J Ment Health Addict 2016;14:635–45.doi:10.1007/s11469-015-9610-x
      OpenUrl
    29. 29.↵
      2. Marchica L ,
      3. Zhao Y ,
      4. Derevensky J , et al
      . Understanding the relationship between sports-relevant gambling and being at-risk for a gambling problem among American adolescents. J Gambl Stud 2017;33:437–48.doi:10.1007/s10899-016-9653-3
      OpenUrl
    30. 30.↵
      2. Lopez-Gonzalez H ,
      3. Griffiths MD
      . Is European online gambling regulation adequately addressing in-play betting advertising? Gaming Law Rev Econ 2016;20:495–503.doi:10.1089/glre.2016.2064
      OpenUrl
    31. 31.↵
      2. Lopez-Gonzalez H ,
      3. Griffiths MD
      . Understanding the convergence of markets in online sports betting. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2018;53:807–23.doi:10.1177/1012690216680602
      OpenUrl
    32. 32.↵
      2. Griffiths MD ,
      3. Auer M
      . The irrelevancy of game-type in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of problem gambling. Front Psychol 2013;3.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00621
    33. 33.↵
      2. Killick EA ,
      3. Griffiths MD
      . In-Play sports betting: a scoping study. Int J Ment Health Addict 2018;22.doi:10.1007/s11469-018-9896-6
    34. 34.↵
      1. United Kingdom Gambling Commission
      . In-play (in-running) betting: position paper, 2016. Available: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/In-running-betting-position-paper.pdf;
    35. 35.↵
      2. Hing N ,
      3. Lamont M ,
      4. Vitartas P , et al
      . Sports bettors' responses to sports-embedded gambling promotions: implications for compulsive consumption. J Bus Res 2015;68:2057–66.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.003
      OpenUrl
    36. 36.↵
      2. Hing N ,
      3. Vitartas P ,
      4. Lamont M
      . Promotion of gambling and live betting odds during televised sport: influences on gambling participation and problem gambling. Lismore, Australia: Centre for Gambling Education and Research, 2014.
    37. 37.↵
      2. Bestman A ,
      3. Thomas SL ,
      4. Randle M , et al
      . Children's implicit recall of junk food, alcohol and gambling sponsorship in Australian sport. BMC Public Health 2015;15.doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2348-3
    38. 38.↵
      2. Lopez-Gonzalez H ,
      3. Estévez A ,
      4. Griffiths MD
      . Marketing and advertising online sports betting: a problem gambling perspective. J Sport Soc Issues 2017;41:256–72.doi:10.1177/0193723517705545
      OpenUrl
    39. 39.↵
      2. Lopez-Gonzalez H ,
      3. Griffiths MD
      . “CASHING OUT” in sports betting: implications for problem gambling and regulation. Gaming Law Review 2017;21:323–6.doi:10.1089/glr2.2017.2144
      OpenUrl
    40. 40.↵
      2. Cohen A
      . NBC sports debuts the daily line sports gambling radio show, 2019. Available: https://www.sporttechie.com/nbc-sports-debuts-the-daily-line-sports-gambling-radio-show/;
    41. 41.↵
      2. Barnes GM ,
      3. Welte JW ,
      4. Hoffman JH , et al
      . Comparisons of gambling and alcohol use among college students and noncollege young people in the United States. J Am Coll Health 2010;58:443–52.doi:10.1080/07448480903540499
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. 42.↵
      2. Lostutter TW ,
      3. Lewis MA ,
      4. Cronce JM , et al
      . The use of protective behaviors in relation to gambling among college students. J Gambl Stud 2014;30:27–46.doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9343-8
      OpenUrl
    43. 43.↵
      2. Blinn-Pike L ,
      3. Worthy SL ,
      4. Jonkman JN
      . Disordered gambling among college students: a meta-analytic synthesis. J Gambl Stud 2007;23:175–83.doi:10.1007/s10899-006-9036-2
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. 44.↵
      2. Nowak D
      . College student-athlete gambling disorder: a review of research (1991-2017). J Psychiatr Ment Health 2017;1:1–7.
      OpenUrl
    45. 45.↵
      2. Derevensky J
      . Teen gambling: understanding a growing epidemic. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.
    46. 46.↵
      2. Dannon PN ,
      3. Lowengrub K ,
      4. Shalgi B , et al
      . Dual psychiatric diagnosis and substance abuse in pathological gamblers: a preliminary gender comparison study. J Addict Dis 2006;25:49–54.doi:10.1300/J069v25n03_07
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. 47.↵
      2. Rush BR ,
      3. Bassani DG ,
      4. Urbanoski KA , et al
      . Influence of co-occurring mental and substance use disorders on the prevalence of problem gambling in Canada. Addiction 2008;103:1847–56.doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02338.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. 48.↵
      2. Park S ,
      3. Cho MJ ,
      4. Jeon HJ , et al
      . Prevalence, clinical correlations, comorbidities, and suicidal tendencies in pathological Korean gamblers: results from the Korean epidemiologic catchment area study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2010;45:621–9.doi:10.1007/s00127-009-0102-9
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. 49.↵
      “Do women gamble for the same reasons as men?”. In Culture and the gambling phenomenon. Proceedings of the eleventh National Association for Gambling Studies conference, Sydney, Australia, 2001.
    50. 50.↵
      2. Hing N ,
      3. Breen H
      . Profiling lady luck: an empirical study of gambling and problem gambling amongst female Club members. J Gambl Stud 2001;17:47–69.doi:10.1023/A:1016640332005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. 51.↵
      2. Holdsworth L ,
      3. Hing N ,
      4. Breen H
      . Exploring women's problem gambling: a review of the literature. Int Gambl Stud 2012;12:199–213.doi:10.1080/14459795.2012.656317
      OpenUrl
    52. 52.↵
      2. Nower L ,
      3. Blaszczynski A
      . Characteristics and gender differences among self-excluded casino problem gamblers: Missouri data. J Gambl Stud 2006;22:81–99.doi:10.1007/s10899-005-9004-2
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. 53.↵
      2. Shead NW ,
      3. Derevensky JL ,
      4. Fong TW , et al
      . Characteristics of Internet gamblers among a sample of students at a large, public university in southwestern United States. J Coll Stud Dev 2012;53:133–48.doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0005
      OpenUrl
    54. 54.↵
      2. Gainsbury S
      . Internet gambling: current research findings and implications. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
    55. 55.↵
      2. Demaree HA ,
      3. DeDonno MA ,
      4. Burns KJ , et al
      . You bet: how personality differences affect risk-taking preferences. Pers Individ Dif 2008;44:1484–94.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.005
      OpenUrl
    56. 56.↵
      2. Wong G ,
      3. Zane N ,
      4. Saw A , et al
      . Examining gender differences for gambling engagement and gambling problems among emerging adults. J Gambl Stud 2013;29:171–89.doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9305-1
      OpenUrl
    57. 57.↵
      2. Nower L ,
      3. Derevensky JL ,
      4. Gupta R
      . The relationship of impulsivity, sensation seeking, coping, and substance use in youth gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2004;18:49–55.doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.1.49
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    58. 58.↵
      2. Worthy SL ,
      3. Jonkman J ,
      4. Blinn-Pike L
      . Sensation-seeking, risk-taking, and problematic financial behaviors of college students. J Fam Econ Issues 2010;31:161–70.doi:10.1007/s10834-010-9183-6
      OpenUrl
    59. 59.↵
      2. Neighbors C ,
      3. Lostutter TW ,
      4. Cronce JM , et al
      . Exploring college student gambling motivation. J Gambl Stud 2002;18:361–70.doi:10.1023/A:1021065116500
      OpenUrlPubMed
    60. 60.↵
      2. Paskus T ,
      3. Derevensky J
      . Trends in NCAA Student-athlete gambling behaviors and attitudes-Executive summary. Indianapolis: NCAA, 2017.
    61. 61.↵
      2. Ellenbogen S ,
      3. Jacobs D ,
      4. Derevensky J , et al
      . Gambling behavior among college Student-Athletes. J Appl Sport Psychol 2008;20:349–62.doi:10.1080/10413200802056685
      OpenUrl
    62. 62.↵
      2. Huang J-H ,
      3. Jacobs DF ,
      4. Derevensky J , et al
      . Pathological gambling amongst college athletes. J Am Coll Health 2007;56:93–9.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    63. 63.↵
      2. Huang J-H ,
      3. Jacobs DF ,
      4. Derevensky JL
      . Sexual risk-taking behaviors, gambling, and heavy drinking among U.S. college athletes. Arch Sex Behav 2010;39:706–13.doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9521-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    64. 64.↵
      2. Huang J-H ,
      3. Jacobs DF ,
      4. Derevensky JL
      . DSM-based problem gambling: increasing the odds of heavy drinking in a national sample of U.S. college athletes? J Psychiatr Res 2011;45:302–8.doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.07.001
      OpenUrlPubMed
    65. 65.↵
      2. Weiss S
      . Cross-addiction on campus: more problems for student-athletes. Subst Use Misuse 2010;45:1525–41.doi:10.3109/10826081003682297
      OpenUrlPubMed
    66. 66.↵
      2. Bourn D
      . Gambling behavior among college student-athletes, non-athletes, and former athletes., 1998.
    67. 67.↵
      2. Engwall D ,
      3. Hunter R ,
      4. Steinberg M
      . Gambling and other risk behaviors on University campuses. J Am Coll Health 2004;52:245–56.doi:10.3200/JACH.52.6.245-256
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    68. 68.↵
      2. Kerber CS
      . Problem and pathological gambling among college athletes. Ann Clin Psychiatry 2005;17:243–7.doi:10.1080/10401230500295388
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. 69.↵
      2. Huang J-H ,
      3. Jacobs DF ,
      4. Derevensky JL , et al
      . Gambling and health risk behaviors among U.S. College student-athletes: findings from a national study. J Adolesc Health 2007;40:390–7.doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.146
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. 70.↵
      2. Huang J-H ,
      3. Jacobs DF ,
      4. Derevensky JL , et al
      . A national study on gambling among US College student-athletes. J Am Coll Health 2007;56:93–9.doi:10.3200/JACH.56.2.93-100
      OpenUrlPubMed
    71. 71.↵
      2. Sansanwal R ,
      3. Derevensky J ,
      4. Paskus T
      . Trends in gambling behaviour among NCAA College student-athletes: a comparison of 2004, 2008 and 2012 NCAA survey data. Int J Sports Med 2018;4:1–12.
      OpenUrl
    72. 72.↵
      2. Richard J ,
      3. Paskus T ,
      4. Derevensky J
      . Trends in gambling behaviours among NCAA College student-athletes: a comparison of the 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 NCAA survey data. J Gamb IssIn Press.
    73. 73.↵
      2. Volberg RA ,
      3. Gupta R ,
      4. Griffiths MD , et al
      . An international perspective on youth gambling prevalence studies. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2010;22:3–38.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    74. 74.↵
      2. Shead NW ,
      3. Derevensky JL ,
      4. Gupta R
      . Risk and protective factors associated with youth problem gambling. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2010;22.
    75. 75.↵
      2. Chase C
      . 11 biggest scandals in sports gambling history, 2018. Available: https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/05/11-biggest-scandals-in-sports-gambling-history;
    76. 76.↵
      2. Hill D
      . A critical mass of corruption: why some football leagues have more match-fixing than others. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 2010;11:38–52.doi:10.1108/IJSMS-11-03-2010-B005
      OpenUrl
    77. 77.↵
      2. Hill D
      . The fix: soccer and organized crime. McClelland & Stewart Limited, 2008.
    78. 78.↵
      2. Aquilina D ,
      3. Chetcuti A
      . Match-fixing: the case of Malta. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2014;6:107–28.doi:10.1080/19406940.2013.777938
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    79. 79.↵
      2. Holden JT ,
      3. Rodenberg RM
      . Lone-wolf match-fixing: global policy considerations. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2017;9:137–51.doi:10.1080/19406940.2016.1202304
      OpenUrl
    80. 80.↵
      2. DJIJoSF F
      . The threat to football from betting-related corruption. International Journal of Sport Finance 2012;7.
    81. 81.↵
      2. Grall-Bronnec M ,
      3. Caillon J ,
      4. Humeau E , et al
      . Gambling among European professional athletes. Prevalence and associated factors. J Addict Dis 2016;35:278–90.doi:10.1080/10550887.2016.1177807
      OpenUrl
    82. 82.↵
      2. Weiss SM ,
      3. Loubier SL
      . Gambling behaviors of former athletes: the delayed competitive effect. UNLV Gaming Res Rev J 2008;12:53–60.
      OpenUrl
    83. 83.↵
      2. Weiss SM ,
      3. Loubier SL
      . Gambling habits of athletes and nonathletes classified as disordered gamblers. J Psychol 2010;144:507–21.doi:10.1080/00223980.2010.503248
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    84. 84.↵
      2. Okuda M ,
      3. Liu W ,
      4. Cisewski JA , et al
      . Gambling disorder and minority populations: prevalence and risk factors. Curr Addict Rep 2016;3:280–92.doi:10.1007/s40429-016-0108-9
      OpenUrl
    85. 85.↵
      2. Alegría AA ,
      3. Petry NM ,
      4. Hasin DS , et al
      . Disordered gambling among racial and ethnic groups in the US: results from the National epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. CNS Spectr 2009;14:132–43.doi:10.1017/S1092852900020113
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    86. 86.↵
      2. Blaszczynski A ,
      3. Huynh S ,
      4. Dumlao VJ , et al
      . Problem gambling within a Chinese speaking community. J Gambl Stud 1998;14:359–80.doi:10.1023/A:1023073026236
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    87. 87.↵
      2. Petry NM
      . A comparison of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activity. Addiction 2003;98:645–55.doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00336.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    88. 88.↵
      2. Shaffer HJ ,
      3. Hall MN ,
      4. Vander Bilt J
      . Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: a research synthesis. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1369–76.doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1369
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    89. 89.↵
      2. Volberg RA ,
      3. Abbott MW
      . Gambling and problem gambling among Indigenous peoples. Subst Use Misuse 1997;32:1525–38.doi:10.3109/10826089709055876
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    90. 90.↵
      2. Welte J ,
      3. Barnes G ,
      4. Wieczorek W , et al
      . Alcohol and gambling pathology among U.S. adults: prevalence, demographic patterns and comorbidity. J Stud Alcohol 2001;62:706–12.doi:10.15288/jsa.2001.62.706
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    91. 91.↵
      2. Westermeyer J ,
      3. Canive J ,
      4. Garrard J , et al
      . Lifetime prevalence of pathological gambling among American Indian and Hispanic American veterans. Am J Public Health 2005;95:860–6.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2003.023770
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    92. 92.↵
      2. Zitzow D
      . Comparative study of problematic gambling behaviors between American Indian and Non-Indian adolescents within and near a northern plains reservation. AIANMHR 1996;7:14–26.doi:10.5820/aian.0702.1996.14
      OpenUrl
    93. 93.↵
      2. Rinker DV ,
      3. Rodriguez LM ,
      4. Krieger H , et al
      . Racial and ethnic differences in problem gambling among college students. J Gambl Stud 2016;32:581–90.doi:10.1007/s10899-015-9563-9
      OpenUrl
    94. 94.↵
      2. Lorains FK ,
      3. Cowlishaw S ,
      4. Thomas SA
      . Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addiction 2011;106:490–8.doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03300.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    95. 95.↵
      2. Barnes GM ,
      3. Welte JW ,
      4. Tidwell M-CO , et al
      . Gambling and substance use: co-occurrence among adults in a recent general population study in the United States. Int Gambl Stud 2015;15:55–71.doi:10.1080/14459795.2014.990396
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    96. 96.↵
      2. Dowling NA ,
      3. Cowlishaw S ,
      4. Jackson AC , et al
      . Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2015;49:519–39.doi:10.1177/0004867415575774
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    97. 97.↵
      2. Bischof A ,
      3. Meyer C ,
      4. Bischof G , et al
      . Suicidal events among pathological gamblers: the role of comorbidity of axis I and axis II disorders. Psychiatry Res 2015;225:413–9.doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.11.074
      OpenUrl
    98. 98.↵
      2. Black DW ,
      3. Coryell W ,
      4. Crowe R , et al
      . Suicide ideations, suicide attempts, and completed suicide in persons with pathological gambling and their first-degree relatives. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2015;45:700–9.doi:10.1111/sltb.12162
      OpenUrl
    99. 99.↵
      2. Stinchfield R ,
      3. Hanson WE ,
      4. Olson DH
      . Problem and pathological gambling among college students. New Directions for Student Services 2006;2006:63–72.doi:10.1002/ss.196
      OpenUrl
    100. 100.↵
      2. Martin RJ ,
      3. Usdan S ,
      4. Cremeens J , et al
      . Disordered gambling and co-morbidity of psychiatric disorders among college students: an examination of problem drinking, anxiety and depression. J Gambl Stud 2014;30:321–33.doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9367-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    101. 101.↵
      2. Quigley L ,
      3. Yakovenko I ,
      4. Hodgins DC , et al
      . Comorbid problem gambling and major depression in a community sample. J Gambl Stud 2015;31:1135–52.doi:10.1007/s10899-014-9488-8
      OpenUrl
    102. 102.↵
      2. Brezing C ,
      3. Derevensky JL ,
      4. Potenza MN
      . Non-substance-addictive behaviors in youth: pathological gambling and problematic internet use. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2010;19:625–41.doi:10.1016/j.chc.2010.03.012
      OpenUrlPubMed
    103. 103.↵
      2. Neighbors C ,
      3. Rodriguez LM ,
      4. Rinker DV , et al
      . Efficacy of personalized normative feedback as a brief intervention for college student gambling: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 2015;83:500–11.doi:10.1037/a0039125
      OpenUrl
    104. 104.↵
      2. Petry NM ,
      3. Stinson FS ,
      4. Grant BF
      . Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders: results from the National epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66:564–74.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    105. 105.↵
      2. Sussman S ,
      3. Lisha N ,
      4. Griffiths M
      . Prevalence of the addictions: a problem of the majority or the minority? Eval Health Prof 2011;34:3–56.doi:10.1177/0163278710380124
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    106. 106.↵
      2. Abbott M
      . The epidemiology and impact of gambling disorder and other gambling-related harm - Discussion Paper. World Health Organization, 2017.
    107. 107.↵
      2. Kessler RC ,
      3. Hwang I ,
      4. LaBrie R , et al
      . DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National comorbidity survey replication. Psychol Med 2008;38:1351–60.doi:10.1017/S0033291708002900
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    108. 108.↵
      2. Derevensky JL ,
      3. Shek D ,
      4. Merrick J
      , eds. Youth gambling problems: The hidden addiction. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
    109. 109.↵
      2. Derevensky J ,
      3. Gilbeau L
      . Preventing adolescent gambling problems. In: Heinz A , Potenza M , Seiferth R , eds. Gambling disorders. Berlin: Springer International In press, 2019.
    110. 110.↵
      2. Marchica L ,
      3. Zhao Y ,
      4. Richard J , et al
      . A comparative analysis of Canadian university policies toward alcohol, drugs and gambling use. Canadian Journal of Addiction 2018;9:18–25.
      OpenUrl
    111. 111.↵
      2. Zhao Y ,
      3. Marchica L ,
      4. Derevensky JL , et al
      . The scope, focus and types of gambling policies among Canadian colleges and universities. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne 2017;58:187–93.doi:10.1037/cap0000092
      OpenUrl
    112. 112.↵
      2. Agley J ,
      3. Walker BB ,
      4. Gassman RA
      . Adaptation of alcohol and drug screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) to a department of intercollegiate athletics: the COMPASS project. Health Educ J 2013;72:647–59.doi:10.1177/0017896912456337
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    113. 113.↵
      2. McDuff D
      . Sports psychiatry: strategies for life balance and peak performance. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2012.
    114. 114.↵
      2. Kroshus E
      . Variability in institutional screening practices related to collegiate student-athlete mental health. J Athl Train 2016;51:389–97.doi:10.4085/1062-6050-51.5.07
      OpenUrl
    115. 115.↵
      2. Bullock S ,
      3. Potenza M
      . Pathological gambling: Neuropsychopharmacology and treatment. Curr Psychopharmacol 2012;1:67–85.
      OpenUrl
    116. 116.↵
      2. Yip SW ,
      3. Potenza MN
      . Treatment of gambling disorders. Curr Treat Options Psychiatry 2014;1:189–203.doi:10.1007/s40501-014-0014-5
      OpenUrl
    117. 117.↵
      2. Kim SW ,
      3. Grant JE ,
      4. Adson DE , et al
      . Double-blind naltrexone and placebo comparison study in the treatment of pathological gambling. Biol Psychiatry 2001;49:914–21.doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01079-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    118. 118.↵
      2. Hollander E ,
      3. DeCaria CM ,
      4. Finkell JN , et al
      . A randomized double-blind fluvoxamine/placebo crossover trial in pathologic gambling. Biol Psychiatry 2000;47:813–7.doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(00)00241-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    119. 119.↵
      2. Kim SW ,
      3. Grant JE ,
      4. Adson DE , et al
      . A double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of paroxetine in the treatment of pathological gambling. J Clin Psychiatry 2002;63:501–7.doi:10.4088/JCP.v63n0606
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    120. 120.↵
      2. Pallesen S ,
      3. Mitsem M ,
      4. Kvale G , et al
      . Outcome of psychological treatments of pathological gambling: a review and meta-analysis. Addiction 2005;100:1412–22.doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01204.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    121. 121.↵
      2. Cowlishaw S ,
      3. Merkouris S ,
      4. Dowling N , et al
      . Psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;39.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008937.pub2
    122. 122.↵
      2. Petry NM
      . Pathological gambling: etiology, co-morbidity and treatment. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005.
    123. 123.↵
      2. Petry NM ,
      3. Ammerman Y ,
      4. Bohl J , et al
      . Cognitive-behavioral therapy for pathological gamblers. J Consult Clin Psychol 2006;74:555–67.doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.555
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    124. 124.↵
      2. Hodgins DC ,
      3. Stea JN ,
      4. Grant JE
      . Gambling disorders. Lancet 2011;378:1874–84.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62185-X
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    125. 125.↵
      2. Petry NM
      . Gamblers anonymous and cognitive-behavioral therapies for pathological gamblers. J Gambl Stud 2005;21:27–33.doi:10.1007/s10899-004-1919-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    126. 126.↵
      2. Petry NM
      . Patterns and correlates of gamblers anonymous attendance in pathological gamblers seeking professional treatment. Addict Behav 2003;28:1049–62.doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00233-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    127. 127.↵
      2. Toneatto T
      . A cognitive-behavioral analysis of gamblers anonymous. J Gamb Iss 2008;21.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors have contributed to the preparation of this manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.