The politics and fantasy of the gambling education discourse: An analysis of gambling industry-funded youth education programmes in the United Kingdom.
The politics and fantasy of the gambling education discourse: An analysis of gambling industry-funded youth education programmes in the United Kingdom.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101122
复制
发表时间：
2022-06
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Petticrew, Mark
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
van Schalkwyk, May C. I.;Hawkins, Benjamin;Petticrew, Mark
关键词：
近几十年来，商业化赌博产品和服务的提供发生了根本性的变化。现在，许多地方的赌博都是由跨国公司提供的，这对公共卫生和政策制定产生了重要影响。英国是全球最自由化的赌博市场之一，但很少有从公共卫生角度对赌博政策进行实证分析。这项研究的目的是提供一个关键的分析英国赌博政策的核心要素，提供行业资助的青少年赌博教育计划。采用商业决定因素的健康透镜，话语理论分析进行了批判性解释的逻辑。这些数据由三个赌博业资助的慈善机构（GambleAware，GamCare和Young Gamers and Gamblers Education Trust）及其合作伙伴提供。这些资源提出了一个赌博教育的话语，旨在再现“负责任的赌博”议程，同时使儿童和青少年问题化。虽然这些资源似乎提供了教育内容和辩论的机会，但主要的重点是教授个人责任以及赌博和游戏及其行业的正常化，同时限制代理的概念。这些资源鼓励年轻人作为个人控制自己的冲动，纠正被描述为错误的认知，目的是成为负责任的消费者。我们的研究结果表明，赌博教育话语如何与更广泛的行业利益保持一致，有助于偏离他们所销售的产品和服务的有害性质，同时将伤害责任转移到儿童，青少年及其家庭身上。尽管这些资源是以公共卫生的名义提供的，但它们构成了一种有利于公司利益的话语。教育工作者、家长、政策制定者和其他人需要被授权来解决在提供赌博业资助的资源时存在的利益冲突。不应允许促进这种有利于行业的干预措施破坏实施防止赌博危害的法规的努力。赌博的危害越来越被认为是全球公共卫生问题。从公共卫生的角度来看，赌博青少年教育计划的实证分析很少。与世界其他地方一样，英国的赌博教育计划主要由赌博业资助。我们的研究结果展示了赌博教育话语与行业利益相一致的方式。我们的研究有助于健康的商业决定因素的一个研究不足的方面，并应用了一个新的框架。需要对青少年赌博教育计划进行更严格的审查。
The provision of commercialised gambling products and services has changed radically in recent decades. Gambling is now provided in many places by multi-national corporations, with important implications for public health and policymaking. The United Kingdom is one of the most liberalised gambling markets globally, however there are few empirical analyses of gambling policy from a public health perspective. This study aims to provide a critical analysis of a core element of UK gambling policy, the provision of industry-funded youth gambling education programmes. Adopting a commercial determinants of health lens, a discourse theoretical analysis was conducted using the logics of critical explanation. The data comprised resources provided by three gambling industry-funded charities (GambleAware, GamCare and the Young Gamers and Gamblers Education Trust) and their partners. The resources present a gambling education discourse that serves to reproduce the ‘responsible gambling’ agenda, while problematising children and young people. While the resources appear to offer educational content and opportunities for debate, the dominant focus is on teaching about personal responsibility and on the normalisation of gambling and gaming and their industries, while constraining the concept of agency. The resources encourage young people to act as individuals to control their impulses, and to correct what are portrayed as faulty cognitions with the aim of becoming responsible consumers. Our findings demonstrate how the gambling education discourse aligns with wider industry interests, serving to deflect from the harmful nature of the products and services they market while shifting responsibility for harm onto children, youth and their families. Despite being delivered in the name of public health, the resources construct a discourse favourable to corporate interests. Educators, parents, policymakers, and others need to be empowered to address the conflicts of interest that exist in the delivery of gambling industry-funded resources. The promotion of such industry-favoured interventions should not be allowed to undermine efforts to implement regulations to prevent gambling harms. Gambling harms are increasingly being recognised as a public health issue globally. There have been few empirical analyses of gambling youth education programmes from a public health perspective. Like elsewhere in the world, UK gambling education programmes are predominantly funded by the gambling industry. Our findings demonstrate the ways in which the gambling education discourse aligns with industry interests. Our study contributes to an under-researched aspect of the commercial determinants of health and applies a novel framework. Greater scrutiny of youth gambling education programmes is needed.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Eaton, Emily M.;Day, Nick A.
通讯作者：
Day, Nick A.
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Am, Heidrun
通讯作者：
Am, Heidrun
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Cowlishaw, S.;Thomas, S. L.
通讯作者：
Thomas, S. L.
影响因子：
12.7
作者：
Friedman, Lissy C.;Cheyne, Andrew;Daynard, Richard A.
通讯作者：
Daynard, Richard A.
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Ayo, Nike
通讯作者：
Ayo, Nike