Gambling Research and Funding Biases

Area of Science:

• Behavioral Science
• Addiction Research
• Social Science

Background:

• A prior review indicated no significant differences in responsible gambling research based on funding source.
• This study aimed to validate these findings across a larger dataset.

Purpose of the Study:

• To empirically synthesize gambling literature outcomes.
• To assess the influence of funding sources on research design and results.
• To determine the generalizability of previous findings on research bias.

Main Methods:

• A comprehensive review of 18 research databases (January 2008 - August 2018).
• Inclusion of 720 quantitative studies with clear gambling hypotheses from gambling and addiction journals.
• Analysis of hypothesis confirmation and funding sources to identify potential bias.

Main Results:

• No significant difference in hypothesis confirmation between industry-funded and non-industry-funded studies.
• Industry-funded studies were more likely to include conflict of interest statements.
• Studies with disclosed funding were more prone to include conflict of interest statements.

Conclusions:

• Gambling industry funding does not appear to bias research outcomes or design.
• Transparency and disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest are crucial.
• The findings support the reliability of responsible gambling research regardless of funding source.