ABSTRACT
When the Fun Stops, Stop, is a prominent 'responsible gambling' campaign in the UK, originally funded and delivered by the industry-initiated and funded Senet Group. Since the Senet Group's dissolution in 2020, the campaign has been overseen by the Betting and Gambling Council (BGC), the main gambling industry trade body. There has been no prior analysis of the activities, ideas and framing adopted by the Senet Group, who claimed to be acting as an industry 'watchdog' and oversaw what they characterised as a major public education campaign. We collated written and image-based material related to the Senet Group and its When the Fun Stops, Stop campaign from multiple sources. Guided by Entman's four functions of framing, we analysed the Senet Group's framing of the issues it sought to address, particularly harmful gambling, as well as its causes, and the solutions, focusing on the group's main activity: the delivery of the When the Fun Stops, Stop campaign. We also critically appraised an evaluation of the campaign funded by the Senet Group, using the findings to interrogate the stated claims about the campaign's effectiveness. The analysis showed that the Senet Group's framing of the problem, its causes, and proposed responses resemble those adopted by other industries and industry-funded groups. This involves portraying any harms caused by their products as limited to an atypical minority, rejecting upstream determinants of harm, and promoting individually-targeted voluntary measures, all contrary to the evidence of what works in health promotion, and what would characterise a public health approach. Neither the existing evidence base nor the evidence presented by the Senet Group support their claims about the campaign's effectiveness. These findings add to concerns about industry-funded campaigns in other areas. To minimise conflicts of interest, interventions intended to address gambling-related harms, such as public education campaigns, should be evidence-based and developed, implemented and evaluated completely independent of the industry and industry-funded organisations.
Subject(s)
Gambling , Health Education , Humans , Public Health , Self-ControlABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Telehealth is an increasingly important component of health care delivery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, well-documented disparities persist in the use of digital technologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe smartphone and internet use within a diverse sample, to assess the association of smartphone and internet use with markers of health literacy and health access, and to identify the mediating factors in these relationships. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to a targeted sample designed to oversample historically underserved communities from April 2017 to December 2017. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association of internet and smartphone use with outcomes describing health care access and markers of health literacy for the total cohort and after stratifying by personal history of cancer. Health care access was captured using multiple variables, including the ability to obtain medical care when needed. Markers of health literacy included self-reported confidence in obtaining health information. RESULTS: Of the 2149 participants, 1319 (61.38%) were women, 655 (30.48%) were non-Hispanic White, and 666 (30.99%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median age was 51 years (IQR 38-65). Most respondents reported using the internet (1921/2149, 89.39%) and owning a smartphone (1800/2149, 83.76%). Compared with the respondents with smartphone or internet access, those without smartphone or internet access were more likely to report that a doctor was their most recent source of health information (344/1800, 19.11% vs 116/349, 33.2% for smartphone and 380/1921, 19.78% vs 80/228, 35.1% for internet, respectively; both P<.001). Internet use was associated with having looked for information on health topics from any source (odds ratio [OR] 3.81, 95% CI 2.53-5.75) and confidence in obtaining health information when needed (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.00-3.34) compared with noninternet users. Smartphone owners had lower odds of being unable to obtain needed medical care (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.95) than nonsmartphone owners. Among participants with a prior history of cancer, smartphone ownership was significantly associated with higher odds of confidence in ability to obtain needed health information (OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.05-30.23) and lower odds of inability to obtain needed medical care (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.47), although these associations were not significant among participants without a prior history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We describe widespread use of digital technologies in a community-based cohort, although disparities persist. In this cohort, smartphone ownership was significantly associated with ability to obtain needed medical care, suggesting that the use of smartphone technology may play a role in increasing health care access. Similarly, major illnesses such as cancer have the potential to amplify health engagement. Finally, special emphasis must be placed on reaching patient populations with limited digital access, so these patients are not further disadvantaged in the new age of telehealth.