The self-exclusion experience for problem gamblers in South Australia

Increased prevalence of problem gambling has accompanied the spread of gaming venuesin many parts of the world. One intervention to minimise the impact of harmful patternsof gambling behaviours is self-exclusion, where patrons can elect to ban themselves froma gaming venue or its gaming facilities for a specified time period. While self-exclusionprograms are widely available, little research has been conducted into their operationsand efficacy, particularly from the self-excluders’ perspective. This paper presents findingsfrom 35 survey responses and 23 interviews with gamblers who had self-excludedthrough a centralised service in South Australia. They identified key programshortcomings as low publicity, limits on how many venues they could self-bar from,and inadequate venue monitoring for breaches of self-barring orders. Nevertheless, thecentralised service, staffed by trained psychologists and located away from gamingvenues, which allows multiple venue barring in one application, appeared advantageousover programs that require people to self-exclude directly from individual gaming venues. Most respondents (85%) had ceased or lessened their gambling in the 12 monthsfollowing self-barring. Nevertheless, some continued to struggle to manage theirgambling, reflected in breaches of their orders and gambling in venues from which theywere not excluded.