RESEARCH QUESTION
What are the effects of neighbourhood disadvantage, gambling availability and closeness of gambling venues on gambling participation and pathology? 

PURPOSE
Past studies have shown that neighbourhood disadvantage is linked to problem behaviours such as alcohol and drug abuse and likely to gambling as well. The public health model assumes that with high amounts of legal gambling availability, there are increased amounts of gambling participation. Furthermore, some research has shown that geographic closeness to gambling venues can lead to an increase in gambling pathology and participation. This study examined the effect of neighbourhood disadvantage, gambling availability and geographical closeness on past-year gambling, gambling frequency and gambling problems. This study used a sample representative to the United States, which allowed for the calculation of distance of gambling venues and characterization of neighbourhood characteristics.  

HYPOTHESIS
None stated.

PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 2631 US residents aged 18 or order, recruited by a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. The sample spread across the US proportionately by population.  

PROCEDURE
Participants were interviewed on the telephone between August 1999 and October 2000. Socioeconomic status, gambling frequency in the past-year and pathological and problem gambling was assessed. Participants’ addresses and the addresses of several gambling establishments were converted to coordinates on a map. Neighbourhood disadvantage and permissiveness of state gambling laws were both calculated.  

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Socioeconomic status was based on participants’ family income, years of education and occupational prestige. Gambling frequency was measured with a set of 15 questions that corresponded to 15 types of gambling. Participants were asked if they had participated in each type of gambling in the past year and if so, they were subsequently asked about the frequency of participation. Pathological or problem gambling was measured using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). Participants’ neighbourhood disadvantage measure was calculated based on their address and the surrounding percentages of households on public assistance, families headed by a female, adults unemployed and persons in poverty. Permissiveness of state gambling laws was measured by the number of types of gambling that were legal in the participant’s state. The effect of neighbourhood disadvantage, number of casinos within 10 miles and number of legal types of gambling were measured on participants’ gambling in the past-year, frequency of past-year gambling and presence of pathological or problem gambling. 

KEY RESULTS
Of the total sample, 82.2% gambled in the past year and 3.5% were problem or pathological gamblers. Neighbourhood disadvantage showed no effect on past-year gambling; as neighbourhood disadvantage increased, frequency of gambling and presence of problem or pathological gambling also increased. The closer participants were to a casino, the higher the likelihood that they had pathological or problem gambling tendencies. The more gambling opportunities permitted by state, the more gambling behaviour ensued.  

LIMITATIONS
While this study did show significant results, they should be interpreted with caution as individual traits still have a stronger relationship with gambling frequency and problems, than do environmental aspects.  

CONCLUSIONS
Results showed that neighbourhood disadvantage and proximity to a casino effects gambling frequency and problems. Gambling legalization (state permissiveness) also affected past-year gambling and gambling frequency. This study sheds important light for public policy: policy makers can have some influence over rates of gambling frequency and problem gambling in society.