Open letter from UK based academic scientists to the secretaries of state for digital, culture, media and sport and for health and social care regarding the need for independent funding for the prevention and treatment of gambling harms

First paragraph: Dear secretaries of state, As leading academic scientists studying gambling behaviours and its harms, we are writing to express our concern about the continuing support shown for the voluntary system of funding treatment, prevention and research in Great Britain. We feel compelled to write to you following the Betting and Gaming Council’s (BGC) recent announcement (17 June 2020) that five of its operators will now allocate the long awaited increase in funding for prevention and treatment, first promised on 2 August 2019, to GambleAware rather than the charity Action Against Gambling Harms. Irrespective of which organisation funds are given to, the BGC’s announcement exemplifies the longstanding weakness of a funding system that allows the gambling industry to regulate the availability and distribution of vital funds to address gambling harms across our communities. As we outline below, the continuance of this arrangement produces several negative effects that undermine the collective effort to reduce harms from gambling. It is also our belief that funds for research into gambling harms and their reduction should primarily be distributed through recognised independent organisations, such as UK Research and Innovation. We hereby urge you, as the secretaries of state with responsibilities for addressing gambling harms, to implement a statutory levy to fund effective prevention and treatment of gambling harms that is free both from industry influence and the perception of industry influence...... [Read more in the article]Additional co-authors: Carolyn Downs, Simon Dymond, Emanuele Fino, Elizabeth Goyder, Cindy Gray, Mark Griffiths, Peter Grindrod, Lee Hogan, Alice Hoon, Richard James, Bev John, Jill Manthorpe, Jim McCambridge, David McDaid, Martin McKee, Sally McManus, Antony Moss, Caroline Norrie, David J Nutt, Jim Orford, Rob Pryce, Gerda Reith, Amanda Roberts, Emmett Roberts, Gareth Roderique-Davies, Jim Rogers, Robert D Rogers, Stephen Sharman, John Strang, Richard Tunney, John Turner, Robert West, David Zendl

Rapid literature review on the impact of health messaging and product information on alcohol labelling

Background and aim Alcohol labelling enables people to make informed decisions about the products they purchase and consume. This rapid review explores the impact of health messaging and product information on consumer attention, comprehension, recall, judgment and behavioural compliance in relation to alcohol use. Methods The rapid review adopted a multi-faceted search strategy to identify primary studies on health messaging and/or product information on alcohol packaging, and the impact of these on consumer-related outcomes. Results The review provides support for large, colourful labels on the front of alcohol products and the use of plain packaging to increase the visibility of health messaging. It also supports the use of explicit, negatively-framed statements that link alcohol to specific diseases. Colour-coded schemes and pictorial warnings may further optimize the effectiveness of alcohol labels. We did not find sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of product information alone in influencing consumerattention, comprehension, recall, judgment and behavioural compliance. Conclusion Well-designed alcohol labels can positively influence consumers’ attention, comprehension, recall, judgment and behavioural compliance. The findings have implications for alcohol labelling research and policy.Output Status: Forthcoming/Available Onlin

Many analysts, one data set: making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results

Twenty-nine teams involving 61 analysts used the same data set to address the same research question: whether soccer referees are more likely to give red cards to dark-skin-toned players than to light-skin-toned players. Analytic approaches varied widely across the teams, and the estimated effect sizes ranged from 0.89 to 2.93 (Mdn = 1.31) in odds-ratio units. Twenty teams (69%) found a statistically significant positive effect, and 9 teams (31%) did not observe a significant relationship. Overall, the 29 different analyses used 21 unique combinations of covariates. Neither analysts’ prior beliefs about the effect of interest nor their level of expertise readily explained the variation in the outcomes of the analyses. Peer ratings of the quality of the analyses also did not account for the variability. These findings suggest that significant variation in the results of analyses of complex data may be difficult to avoid, even by experts with honest intentions. Crowdsourcing data analysis, a strategy in which numerous research teams are recruited to simultaneously investigate the same research question, makes transparent how defensible, yet subjective, analytic choices influence research results