Problem Gambling in Young Adults: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research (2000-2020)

Systematic review examining problem gambling prevalence across age groups and sex groups worldwide between 2000 to 2020. The review was conducted using the guidelines presented in the PRSIMA statement (Page et al., 2020). As gambling research is regularly published in government reports, a broader search beyond peer reviewed articles was required to include a maximum of relevant studies. An initial screen was conducted based on the studies included in the 2016 Problem Gambling Worldwide systematic review (Calado & Griffiths, 2016). A further search of the databases psycINFO, psycArticles and Academic Search Ultimate was conducted from July 2021 to January 2022. Search terms were categorised in to two groups, with results requiring one term from each; 1) problem gambling/problem-gambling/pathological gambling/pathological-gambling/gambling disorder/gambling-disorder, AND 2) prevalence/rate/frequency. Search terms were required in the title, keywords or abstract of articles. Results were organised and stored with the use of Microsoft Excel software version 16.43.1.The included articles reported PG prevalence in age groups, however age ranges varied per study. Therefore, new age groups were defined for the current review in order to compare results. Adults were categorised into three age groups which were young, middle and older. The ‘young’ group included people aged from 18 to 35 years. The ‘middle’ group included people aged from 30 to 55 years. The ‘older’ group included people aged from 45 to 65 years.Problematic or disordered gambling was measured in a variety of ways across the surveyed studies and all validated measures of PG were considered for review. Therefore, for the purpose of this review all results which met the threshold used in a study for moderate and severe problems were examined.Data from the included studies were extracted independently by one reviewer (GD) onto a form tailored to the requirements of this review. Concerns regarding the validity of relevance of data were resolved through discussion with a second reviewer (MB). The extracted data included publication details (for example: Title, Author, Publication, Year), study design, sample characteristics (for example: age and sex); problem gambling measures (for example: Problem Gambling Severity Index); 5) main findings (for example: prevalence of PG and gambling participation). Where contact details were available, the corresponding author of eligible studies was contacted if relevant data were missing; however only one response was received advising this data could not be provided. Descriptive data was used to determine the range, mean and odds ratios of outcomes relating to PG of specified groups.