The Casino in Your Pocket: Why Gambling Is Becoming a Public Health Crisis

Football season is upon us, and with it, non-stop ads for sportsbooks.

For much of modern history, gambling required friction. You had to go somewhere. A casino. A racetrack. A convenience store. A bingo hall. Maybe a bookmaker.

Even when gambling was legal, it was often bounded by geography, opening hours, social context, and the inconvenience of physically getting there.

That world is gone.

Today, a person can wake up, check the score of last night’s game, place a wager on tonight’s game, bet on an individual player’s performance, open an online casino, play a slot machine, and receive a personalized gambling promotion before getting out of bed.

The smartphone has transformed gambling from an activity into an environment.

Researchers writing in The Lancet Public Health have described this shift as effectively putting a “casino in your pocket” 24 hours a day. Traditional gambling products have been digitized, sports betting has become continuous through in-play wagering, and online gambling is now one of the fastest-growing segments of the global gambling industry. Consumer losses from online gambling alone are projected to reach roughly $205 billion annually by 2030, while total losses across commercial gambling could approach $700 billion by 2028. This transformation matters for public health because the question is no longer simply whether some people become addicted to gambling.

The larger question is what happens when gambling becomes faster, more available, more personalized, more heavily marketed, and more deeply embedded in everyday life.

And increasingly, the answer from public health researchers is clear: Gambling should be treated not merely as an individual behavioral problem, but as a population health issue.

Gambling Has Changed

Gambling itself is ancient. What is new is its speed, reach, intensity, and accessibility.

Online gambling has removed many of the physical barriers that once separated gambling from ordinary life. Casino games, slots, lotteries, and sportsbooks can now be accessed continuously through mobile devices.

Sports betting provides perhaps the clearest example. Historically, a person might place a wager before a game began. Today, online sportsbooks allow bettors to wager continuously throughout a match: the next score, the next possession, a player’s next statistic, the outcome of the next inning, quarter, or drive.

A single sporting event can generate dozens or hundreds of wagering opportunities. The result is a fundamentally different product. Researchers describe contemporary sports betting as a high-speed, continuous form of gambling. Digital casino games and electronic gambling machines operate similarly, encouraging repeated engagement with short intervals between wagers.

These changes are important because not all gambling products carry the same risk. Continuous products (especially online casino games, electronic gambling machines, and some forms of sports betting) are more strongly associated with gambling-related harm than lower-frequency products such as traditional lotteries.

The 2024 Lancet Public Health Commission estimated that among adults who gamble on online casino or slot products, approximately 15.8% experience problematic gambling or gambling disorder. Among adolescents using those products, the estimate was 26.4%.

For sports betting, the corresponding estimates were 8.9% among adults and 16.3% among adolescents. They suggest that gambling risk depends not only on the person gambling, but also on the characteristics of the product being consumed.

From Gambling Addiction to Gambling Harm

For decades, public discussions of gambling focused primarily on the “problem gambler.” The framework was familiar. Most people gamble responsibly. A small subset loses control. Those individuals require education, treatment, or self-discipline.

Public health researchers increasingly argue that this model is too narrow. Gambling disorder is real and serious. It is recognized as an addictive disorder in major diagnostic systems, including the ICD-11 and DSM-5. But gambling-related harm extends far beyond people who meet the diagnostic threshold for gambling disorder.

The effects of gambling can include financial losses, debt, relationship conflict, psychological distress, lost productivity, poor educational outcomes, housing instability, family disruption, substance use, domestic violence, and suicide. These harms can also affect spouses, children, parents, coworkers, and communities.

One synthesis cited in a recent JAMA Internal Medicine article estimated that a person experiencing gambling disorder affects an average of six significant others. That matters because it changes how we should count the burden of gambling.

A gambling-related crisis does not stop at the person placing the bet.

It can mean a rent payment that disappears.

A credit card that quietly fills.

A family member discovering hidden debt.

A parent becoming emotionally unavailable.

A relationship collapsing under secrecy and financial pressure.

An employer dealing with absenteeism or lost productivity.

A child growing up in an unstable household.

The epidemiological unit is therefore larger than the gambler.

The Prevention Paradox

One of the most important findings in gambling research comes from a classic public health idea: the prevention paradox. People with the most severe gambling problems experience the greatest harm individually, but they make up a relatively small share of the population. People at lower levels of risk may experience less severe harm individually, but they are far more numerous. As a result, a substantial portion of the overall burden of gambling-related harm can come from people who would never meet the clinical criteria for gambling disorder. Reviews of gambling epidemiology have found exactly this pattern: although people with gambling disorders experience considerable harm, much of the population-level burden may arise among people categorized as at-risk or even non-problem gamblers.

If public health efforts focus only on identifying and treating the relatively small group of people who meet criteria for gambling disorder, they may miss a large share of the harm occurring across the population. This is a familiar public health challenge. Alcohol-related harm does not arise only among people with severe alcohol dependence. Road injuries are not prevented only by treating people after crashes, and tobacco-related disease was not reduced simply by treating people after they developed lung cancer. Population health works upstream, by changing the conditions that shape risk across entire populations. Increasingly, gambling researchers argue that gambling policy must do the same.

The Sportsbook Became Part of the Game

Perhaps nowhere is the normalization of gambling more visible than in sports. Sports betting is no longer simply adjacent to professional sports; it is increasingly embedded within the experience of watching them. Advertisements appear during games, betting odds are discussed on broadcasts, teams and leagues establish commercial partnerships with gambling companies, celebrities and influencers promote betting products, and mobile applications deliver promotions directly to users.

The boundary between watching sports and gambling on sports has consequently become increasingly difficult to see, creating a particularly important public health concern for younger audiences. Children do not have to place bets themselves to become familiar with gambling.

They simply have to watch sports.

The Lancet Commission warns that children and young people are now routinely exposed to gambling advertising, sponsorship, and industry messaging at levels that would have been difficult to imagine before the digital era. Exposure to this marketing can increase young people’s propensity to gamble while helping normalize gambling within peer groups, particularly among sports fans.

That normalization matters because public health risk rarely begins when someone develops a disorder. It begins much earlier, as behaviors become familiar, expected, and eventually ordinary. When the cultural question surrounding a sporting event shifts from “Do people gamble?” to “What are you betting on tonight?”, something important has changed. Gambling is no longer merely an optional activity surrounding sports; it has begun to shape the social environment in which people experience them.

Adolescents Are Already Gambling Online

The youth data are especially concerning. The Lancet Public Health Commission estimated that roughly 10.3% of adolescents reported gambling online, while approximately 9.1% reported sports betting, despite these being age-restricted products. The authors caution that even these figures may underestimate the scale of the problem because gambling products and young people’s digital behaviors are evolving faster than traditional population surveys can capture them.

At the same time, the boundaries between gaming and gambling are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish. Digital games can incorporate gambling-like mechanics, while gambling products increasingly borrow features from video games. Loot boxes, skins, fantasy sports, social casino games, esports betting, and other hybrid products further blur the traditional distinction between gaming and gambling, potentially introducing young people to gambling-like behaviors long before they can legally enter a casino or sportsbook.

For public health, the concern extends beyond whether adolescents are actively placing bets. Young people are growing up in digital environments where gambling mechanics, chance-based rewards, sports culture, gaming culture, influencer marketing, and financial transactions increasingly overlap. These repeated exposures can make gambling-like behaviors feel familiar and ordinary well before someone places their first legal wager. The challenge, therefore, is not simply preventing underage access to gambling products, but understanding how a rapidly changing digital environment may shape young people’s attitudes toward risk, money, chance, and gambling itself.

Gambling Is Becoming Personalized

Digital gambling introduces another major change: data.

Online gambling companies can observe user behavior with remarkable precision, including when and how often people gamble, which products they prefer, how much they deposit and wager, when they stop or return, and which promotions encourage them to re-engage. This information lets operators move beyond broad advertising toward more personalized products and marketing. The Lancet Commission notes that gambling applications enable direct, real-time communication between operators and consumers, while behavioral data can profile users and tailor offers. Partnerships with sports organizations and social media platforms further expand the reach of these marketing systems.

From a public health perspective, this creates a significant information imbalance. Gambling operators may know a great deal about an individual consumer’s behavior, while the consumer may know relatively little about the products being offered to them. Operators can use behavioral data to target promotions and personalize marketing, even as consumers may lack comparable information about the characteristics and potential risks of gambling products. This imbalance complicates the familiar rhetoric of “responsible gambling.” Individual responsibility remains important, but how meaningful is that responsibility when one side of the transaction has detailed behavioral data, personalized promotions, and a financial incentive to encourage continued engagement?

The Economics of Heavy Gambling

The business model creates another important public health concern because gambling revenues are not distributed evenly across everyone who gambles. Instead, a relatively small group of high-intensity users can generate a remarkably large share of total spending. The 2024 Lancet Public Health Commission cites U.S. evidence showing that just 5.7% of people who engaged in sports betting accounted for 80% of sports-betting spending. The pattern was even more concentrated for online casinos, where 4.9% of gamblers accounted for 80% of revenue. This concentration matters because the people generating the most revenue may also be among those at greatest risk of experiencing gambling-related harm.

From a public health perspective, these numbers raise questions about the commercial model itself. If a tiny percentage of customers accounted for most sales of another potentially harmful consumer product, we would want to understand how much the industry’s profitability depended on its heaviest users. That question becomes particularly important when commercial growth is tied to increasing the frequency and intensity of gambling. Researchers describe a highly competitive environment in which companies develop faster, more immersive, and more engaging products designed to attract consumers and sustain their participation. The concern, then, is not simply that gambling companies make money by selling gambling. It is that the underlying financial incentives reward greater and more sustained consumption, creating a potential conflict between commercial growth and efforts to reduce gambling-related harm.

Gambling Harms Are Not Distributed Equally

Like many public health problems, gambling harm follows social and economic gradients. People with fewer financial resources can experience far greater consequences from the same monetary loss. A $500 gambling loss, for example, means different things to different households. For one family, it may represent discretionary entertainment spending; for another, it may mean money that would otherwise have paid for groceries, utilities, medication, or rent. Research also suggests that exposure to gambling opportunities may itself be unequal. The Lancet Commission points to studies showing higher densities of electronic gambling machines in socioeconomically deprived areas, with greater machine density associated with higher levels of gambling-related harm.

These patterns raise a broader question about gambling and health equity. Governments often emphasize the public revenue generated through legalized gambling, but less attention is given to where that money ultimately comes from. The Commission argues that gambling revenue can be regressive, with socially and economically disadvantaged populations contributing disproportionately relative to their available resources. Gambling can therefore reinforce existing inequalities: people already facing economic insecurity may be more vulnerable to the consequences of losses, while some of the revenue generated from those losses flows back to governments and gambling operators. This makes gambling not only a behavioral health issue, but a health equity issue as well.

A state may celebrate millions of dollars in gambling tax revenue, but public health requires us to ask a second, equally important question: Who paid that tax?

The Financial Literacy Problem Is More Complicated Than It Looks

One intuitive response to gambling harm is education: teach people about probability, improve financial literacy, and help consumers understand that gambling products are designed to provide the house with an advantage. The logic seems reasonable, but research examining financial literacy and gambling behavior in the United States complicates that assumption. Financial literacy generally was not strongly associated with gambling frequency, although the relationship became more meaningful in environments where electronic gambling machines were readily available. This suggests that knowledge may help, but it does not operate in a vacuum. A financially sophisticated person may understand probability and expected value perfectly well and still gamble because gambling provides excitement, escape, social connection, or psychological reward. When gambling is also readily accessible, environmental factors may exert an influence that education alone cannot overcome.

This finding echoes decades of experience in other areas of public health. Most people know that smoking is harmful, that excessive alcohol consumption carries health risks, and that some dietary patterns increase the risk of chronic disease. Providing accurate information remains an important part of prevention, but knowledge by itself rarely determines behavior. People make decisions within social and commercial environments that continually shape what is available, attractive, convenient, and normal. Gambling presents the same challenge. Education and financial literacy may be valuable components of prevention, but they are unlikely to be sufficient when the surrounding environment is simultaneously designed to encourage continued consumption.

Mental Health, Suicide, and Family Harm

The harms associated with gambling extend far beyond money. Recent reviews link harmful gambling with depression, bipolar disorder, substance use disorders, suicidality, family conflict, and intimate partner violence. The relationship between gambling and mental health may also be bidirectional: psychological distress can increase vulnerability to gambling, while gambling losses can deepen that distress. Debt can generate anxiety, secrecy can contribute to isolation, and attempts to recover losses through additional gambling can compound financial problems. As relationships become strained and financial options narrow, these pressures can reinforce one another, creating a cycle in which gambling and its consequences become increasingly difficult to separate.

This interconnectedness is one reason gambling cannot be neatly assigned to a single public health silo. Gambling-related harm intersects with behavioral health, suicide prevention, substance use, domestic violence, financial insecurity, housing instability, and family wellbeing. In many cases, the first visible sign of a gambling problem may not appear in a clinic at all. It may surface in a bank statement, a divorce filing, a crisis hotline call, a missed rent payment, or an emergency department visit. This diffuse pattern of consequences makes gambling-related harm difficult to detect through any single system and underscores the need for surveillance and prevention efforts that reach across healthcare, behavioral health, financial, social service, and community settings..

Public Health Surveillance Is Behind the Market

One of the most striking conclusions from the recent literature is how much remains unknown about the scale and distribution of gambling-related harm. Commercial gambling has become increasingly sophisticated in collecting and analyzing data, while public health surveillance has struggled to keep pace. The Lancet Commission describes global systems for monitoring gambling and gambling-related harm as still being in their infancy. Many countries lack even basic population surveys, and traditional survey methods may underestimate the prevalence of gambling harm or fail to capture rapidly evolving forms of online and digital gambling. This creates a significant mismatch: gambling operators may observe consumer behavior in real time, while public health agencies may rely on population surveys conducted only every few years.

Closing this gap will require more sophisticated surveillance systems that draw from multiple sources of information. Researchers have suggested combining traditional surveys with treatment data, mortality records, arrests, financial indicators, and other administrative datasets to develop a more complete picture of gambling-related harm. For public health professionals, the principle is familiar: good prevention depends on good surveillance. Without reliable information on who is experiencing harm, where that harm is concentrated, which gambling products carry the greatest risks, and how these patterns change over time, prevention efforts will remain reactive. As gambling products and markets continue to evolve, public health risks are measuring yesterday’s problem while the industry designs tomorrow’s market.

Legalization Changes the Environment

The United States provides a natural experiment in what happens as access to gambling expands. Over the past several years, sports betting has spread rapidly across states, but legalization’s consequences extend beyond simply allowing more people to place bets. Legalization can reshape the broader gambling environment by creating new advertising markets, commercial partnerships, mobile applications, sportsbook promotions, data infrastructure, revenue streams, and consumer expectations. A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine commentary highlighted evidence that Google searches for help with gambling addiction increased following the legalization of sportsbooks in U.S. states between 2017 and 2023.

This does not mean that everyone who places a sports bet will develop a gambling disorder, but it does suggest a broader population-level relationship between access and harm. Earlier epidemiological research has found a similar pattern, with greater gambling availability associated with increased participation and expenditure, as well as higher prevalence of at-risk and problem gambling. From a public health perspective, legalization therefore does more than change the legal status of an individual behavior; it can alter the commercial and social environment in which that behavior occurs, potentially exposing a much larger population to gambling and its associated risks.

The Government Has a Conflict of Interest

Gambling creates a particularly difficult policy problem because governments often occupy several roles simultaneously. They legalize and regulate gambling, collect taxes from it, sometimes operate gambling directly through state lotteries, and use gambling revenue to fund public programs. At the same time, governments are responsible for protecting the health and wellbeing of their populations. Those responsibilities do not always align. The research literature repeatedly identifies this tension, particularly as governments often justify gambling expansion in terms of economic development and increased tax revenue. In the United States, state support and legalization have been important drivers of increased gambling availability, making governments both beneficiaries of gambling revenue and the institutions responsible for addressing its potential harms.

Global policy analyses reveal a similar tension. A review of gambling legislation across 80 jurisdictions found that economic growth, product integrity, and crime prevention were among the most common rationales for changing gambling laws. Public health considerations were less prominent and, when they did appear, often focused narrowly on gambling addiction rather than the broader spectrum of population-level harms. Economic rationales were especially common in North America. This creates a difficult incentive structure because policies that successfully reduce harmful gambling may also reduce gambling consumption and, consequently, government revenue. An effective public health intervention can therefore run counter to the financial interests of the same government responsible for implementing it. The challenge is not simply whether governments can regulate gambling effectively, but whether public health goals can remain the priority when governments have a financial stake in the market they regulate.

“Responsible Gambling” Puts the Burden on the Individual

Most gambling regulation still operates within what researchers call the responsible gambling paradigm.

The basic premise is that gambling itself is acceptable as long as individuals manage their consumption responsibly. Prevention efforts therefore tend to emphasize measures such as self-exclusion programs, warning messages, education, deposit reminders, personal spending information, and treatment for people who develop gambling problems. These tools can be valuable, but they also frame the central problem primarily as individual behavior. A 2024 global review of gambling legislation found that although many governments now recognize gambling-related harm, prevention policies continue to emphasize individual responsibility more often than structural factors such as product design, availability, advertising, and commercial practices.

That framing matters because public health generally does not treat individual responsibility and environmental protections as competing approaches. Consider traffic safety. We expect drivers to behave responsibly, but we do not rely on responsible driving alone. We build guardrails, establish speed limits, regulate automobile design, require seatbelts, design safer roads, and enforce impaired-driving laws. Each intervention acknowledges that individual choices occur within environments that can either increase or reduce the likelihood of harm. Gambling can be approached in much the same way. Encouraging people to make informed and responsible choices remains important, but a public health approach also asks whether the products, policies, marketing practices, and environments surrounding those choices could be designed to reduce risk in the first place.

What a Public Health Approach Would Look Like

A public health approach asks a different set of questions. Rather than focusing only on why an individual lost control of their gambling, it considers the features of the broader environment that increase the probability of harm. Why, for example, can someone gamble continuously at 2 a.m.? Why can gambling products be designed around rapid, repeated wagering? Why are promotions embedded in sports broadcasts, and why can gambling applications use detailed behavioral data to personalize their marketing? A public health perspective also asks why exposure and risk may be concentrated in certain communities and whether the resources devoted to prevention and surveillance are proportional to the scale of gambling revenues. These questions shift attention upstream, from responding to harm after it occurs toward changing the conditions that make harm more likely.

The Lancet Public Health Commission recommends several measures consistent with this approach, including stronger age verification, restrictions on gambling availability and accessibility, limits on advertising and sponsorship, greater regulation of high-risk product characteristics, mandatory deposit and betting limits, universal self-exclusion systems, independent regulation, and accessible treatment. Importantly, these population-level strategies are not substitutes for helping people who are already experiencing gambling-related harm. Treatment remains essential, as do screening, counseling, peer support, and recovery services. The distinction is that public health does not wait for serious harm to occur before intervening. It combines treatment and recovery with efforts to change the environments that produce risk, with the broader goal of reducing the probability that gambling-related harm occurs in the first place.

Health Care Has a Role Too

The medical system has historically played a relatively small role in identifying and addressing gambling-related harm, but that may need to change as gambling becomes more accessible. A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine commentary argues that healthcare professionals should receive better training to recognize and respond to gambling harms, while greater public funding should support both prevention and treatment. Screening for gambling-related problems may become particularly relevant in primary care, behavioral health, substance-use treatment, and suicide prevention. Clinicians already routinely ask patients about tobacco and alcohol use, other substances, depression, intimate partner violence, and financial stress. For some patients, questions about gambling may belong in that same conversation, particularly when gambling could be contributing to financial difficulties, psychological distress, or other behavioral health concerns.

Healthcare, however, represents only one part of the response. Screening can identify people experiencing harm, and treatment can help those who need it, but health systems cannot address the broader commercial and social conditions driving increased exposure to gambling. As the authors argue, we cannot simply treat our way out of a rapidly expanding gambling environment. Clinical services must therefore be paired with population-level prevention strategies that reduce exposure to high-risk products and environments, strengthen regulation, and address gambling-related harm before it reaches the point where someone needs clinical care.

Public Health Has Seen This Pattern Before

The current debate over gambling may feel new, but the underlying public health pattern is familiar. A commercial product becomes increasingly available, consumer choice and personal responsibility become central to how its use is understood, and harms are initially attributed primarily to a relatively small group of people who use the product irresponsibly. Early prevention efforts often focus on education and encouraging better individual decisions. Over time, however, evidence shows that individual behavior is also shaped by product characteristics, availability, advertising, pricing, and other commercial practices. The focus then shifts upstream, from asking why particular individuals experience harm to examining the environments that influence risk across an entire population.

Public health has encountered versions of this pattern with tobacco, alcohol, automobiles, firearms, opioids, and ultra-processed foods. These comparisons should not be stretched too far—gambling has its own distinctive products, risks, and social context—but the broader lesson is relevant.

Health behavior is shaped by environments.

Individual choices matter, but those choices are made within systems that determine what is available, how products are designed and promoted, and how easy or difficult continued consumption becomes. Understanding gambling as a public health issue therefore does not require abandoning the idea of personal responsibility. It requires recognizing that the architecture surrounding individual choice matters too.

The Real Question Is Not Whether Gambling Should Exist

A public health approach does not require arguing that gambling should disappear. Many people gamble recreationally without experiencing serious harm, and the central policy question is not whether all gambling should be eliminated. A more useful question is whether the environments in which gambling occurs unnecessarily increase the risk of harm across the population. That means examining whether betting needs to be available around the clock, whether gambling advertisements should be pervasive during sporting events watched by children, whether high-risk products should incorporate features designed to encourage continuous engagement, and whether operators should be able to use detailed behavioral data to encourage additional gambling. It also means confronting the tension created when governments depend on gambling revenue while also being responsible for regulating its harms.

These are fundamentally questions about how gambling markets should be designed and governed. Individual responsibility remains part of that discussion, but it should not be the only consideration. Public health can help broaden the conversation by asking how product design, marketing, availability, regulation, and commercial incentives shape risk before serious problems develop. The goal is not necessarily to eliminate gambling, but to create an environment in which recreational gambling can coexist with meaningful protections against preventable harm. Those are policy questions, and public health belongs in the conversation.

The Window for Prevention Is Now

Perhaps the most important feature of the current gambling landscape is how quickly it keeps changing. Online gambling is growing, sports betting continues to expand, digital products are becoming more immersive, and marketing is becoming increasingly personalized. At the same time, the distinction between gaming and gambling continues to blur, while new gambling markets are opening around the world. These developments are occurring alongside major changes in gambling policy, meaning that legislation written today may determine how these markets operate for decades. The Lancet Commission warns that many new gambling laws could establish regulatory foundations that persist for the next 10 to 20 years, making decisions about availability, advertising, product design, consumer protections, and industry oversight particularly consequential.

This creates an important window for prevention. Once gambling becomes deeply embedded in sports, media, government revenue systems, commercial partnerships, and everyday consumer behavior, stronger protections may become more politically and economically difficult to implement. Policies established during periods of rapid market expansion can also shape what consumers eventually come to view as normal and acceptable. Public health therefore has an opportunity to influence the development of gambling markets while many of their rules and expectations are still being established. Waiting until the full burden of harm becomes apparent risks allowing the commercial environment to become entrenched first. The challenge is to build safeguards alongside expanding markets rather than retrofitting them years later.

Gambling Is No Longer Somewhere You Go

For much of the twentieth century, gambling was associated with particular places: Las Vegas, Atlantic City, a racetrack, a casino floor, or a lottery counter. Those places still exist, but they no longer define gambling’s boundaries. Gambling has become portable, persistent, and personalized. It is integrated into entertainment, embedded in sports, optimized through behavioral data, and accessible on a device most people carry throughout the day. The casino has not disappeared; in many ways, it has simply moved into our pockets.

That transformation changes the nature of the public health challenge. The central question is no longer simply whether some individuals gamble too much, but whether we are creating environments in which harmful gambling patterns become easier to develop, faster to sustain, more socially normalized, and more profitable for the companies providing them. Public health has spent generations demonstrating that behavior does not occur in isolation. People make choices within systems, and those systems can increase risk or protect against it. The same principle applies to gambling. Treatment and individual responsibility will remain important, but they cannot carry the entire burden of prevention when the environment itself is changing so rapidly.

The decisions being made now about gambling availability, advertising, product design, data use, youth exposure, surveillance, and regulation will help determine what the next generation of gambling looks like—and how much harm accompanies it. Gambling therefore presents an important test for public health: whether we can recognize a changing risk environment early enough to shape it, rather than waiting until its consequences are impossible to ignore. The goal is not to eliminate every wager. It is to ensure that as gambling becomes easier to access, the systems designed to protect health become stronger.

Sources

Abbott, M. W. (2020a). Gambling and gambling-related harm: Recent World Health Organization initiatives. Public Health, 184, 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.04.001

Abbott, M. W. (2020b). The changing epidemiology of gambling disorder and gambling-related harm: Public health implications. Public Health, 184, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.04.003

Price, A., Hilbrecht, M., & Billi, R. (2021). Charting a path towards a public health approach for gambling harm prevention. Journal of Public Health, 29, 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01437-2

Ukhova, D., Marionneau, V., Nikkinen, J., & Wardle, H. (2024). Public health approaches to gambling: A global review of legislative trends. The Lancet Public Health, 9(1), e57–e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00221-9

Wardle, H., Degenhardt, L., Marionneau, V., Reith, G., Livingstone, C., Sparrow, M., Tran, L. T., Biggar, B., Bunn, C., Farrell, M., Kesaite, V., Poznyak, V., Quan, J., Rehm, J., Rintoul, A., Sharma, M., Shiffman, J., Siste, K., Ukhova, D., … Saxena, S. (2024). The Lancet Public Health Commission on gambling. The Lancet Public Health, 9(11), e950–e994. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00167-1

Watanapongvanich, S., Khan, M. S. R., Putthinun, P., Ono, S., & Kadoya, Y. (2021). Financial literacy and gambling behavior in the United States. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3778466

Yeola, A., Allen, M. R., Desai, N., Poliak, A., Yang, K. H., Smith, D. M., & Ayers, J. W. (2025). Growing health concern regarding gambling addiction in the age of sportsbooks. JAMA Internal Medicine, 185(4), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.8193