Beyond Reno: a Critical Commentary on Hancock and Smith
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, ISSN: 1557-1882, Vol: 15, Issue: 6, Page: 1177-1186
2017
- 12Citations
- 20Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
This article provides commentary on Hancock and Smith’s examination of the Reno Model of responsible gambling (RG). Hancock and Smith (2017) contend that the model, intended to provide consumer protection and reduce gambling-related harm, serves as a major impediment to implementation of effective RG policies. This impediment is in large part attributed to the model’s long domination of the ‘international RG policy landscape’ and its emphasis on individual responsibility and problem gamblers. Hancock and Smith also examine other barriers to the introduction of more effective policies. They propose incorporation of the Reno Model within a broader RG-Consumer Protection approach. This approach includes public health principles, consumer protection, duty-of-care, regulatory responsibility and independent research. While portrayed starkly, when there are shades of grey, Hancock and Smith’s critique has merit. Their main conclusion is compelling, namely that effective consumer protection and harm reduction will require much greater emphasis on changes to gambling products, industry operations and practices, and gambling regulation. This article supports the RG-Consumer Protection approach. It also presents epidemiological and other research findings that identify a wide range of risk and protective factors. It suggests that consideration of the full spectrum of modifiable factors at individual, community and wider social levels will enhance policy and prevention programme outcomes. A number of these factors are common to other health conditions, so there is potential for collaboration and synergies with health and social agencies. Mention is made of recent meetings of the International Think Tank on Gambling Research, Policy and Practice and the World Health Organisation. The outcomes of these meetings portend collaborations to advance a global gambling public health agenda.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85026525400&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9794-3; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11469-017-9794-3; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11469-017-9794-3.pdf; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-017-9794-3/fulltext.html; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9794-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-017-9794-3
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know