PONE-D-22-31833Frequent gamblers’ perceptions of the role of gambling marketing in their behaviour: an Interpretative Phenomenological AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Houghton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers (especially 2 and 3) have done a very careful job, so I will not reiterate all their points. Still, please pay special attention to the methodological concerns expressed by reviewer 2. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José C. Perales

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall

This is an interesting and thorough manuscript on a topical issue. It’s generally well written (although overly wordy – see below), and is certainly well considered. It’s clear that the authors have invested considerable effort into producing an intelligent and thoughtful analysis and interpretation. It was a pleasure to read a qualitative analysis that provides such depth and insights. I have some suggestions for improvement – mostly minor. I do think the paper is too long, so have suggested some ways to trim it.

Introduction

The introduction was well argued. I understand that cross-sectional quantitative studies cannot determine the effects of gambling marketing, but they nevertheless have provided useful findings on its perceived effects, and associations with gambling and harmful gambling. So, I think that a short summary of key findings would be valuable, rather than dismissing them entirely. There are several reviews of research into gambling marketing that the authors could draw on to write a few sentences on this to better set the scene for the value of their IPA research. Also, longitudinal studies can help to untangle causal relationships between exposure to gambling marketing and gambling behaviour. One that provides relevant insights is:

Browne, M. et al. (2019). The impact of exposure to wagering advertisements and inducements on intended and actual betting expenditure: An ecological momentary assessment study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8(1), 146-156.

The range of gambling research literature that the manuscript draws upon is fairly lean. Additional qualitative studies that might further inform the intro and/or discussion are:

McGee, D. (2020). On the normalisation of online sports gambling among young adult men in the UK: A public health perspective. Public Health, 184, 89-94.

Parke, A., & Parke, J. (2019). Transformation of sports betting into a rapid and continuous gambling activity: A grounded theoretical investigation of problem sports betting in online settings. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(6), 1340-1359.

The interview chapter in this peer-reviewed report, which used a grounded theory methodology and highlights some similar themes to your analysis: Hing, N. et al. (2018). Effects of wagering marketing on vulnerable adults. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/effects-of-wagering-marketing-on-vulnerable-adults-408/

I think Table 12 should be Table 1?

Methods

The authors provide an excellent justification for their use of IPA, and a very thorough explanation of the methods used. I appreciated having access to the interview guide and analytical processes. However, I’d encourage the authors to reduce the length of this section. This could be achieved by focusing on more concise phrasing where possible, eliminating any repetition, and removing less important information. For example, the info in the section on the Role of the researcher could be stated in a couple of sentences.

Results

The analysis provided a very thoughtful and impressive interpretation. I have no suggestions for any substantive changes.

Again however, some expression could be more concise (i.e., edit with the aim of reducing the length of each sentence and removing unnecessary words). Some quotes could also be trimmed by replacing words that don’t really add anything with “…”. Some quotes would benefit from more punctuation to improve their readability.

Discussion

I don’t think the Summary of results is needed since the intro to the Results section already provides this. Suggest removing.

The Discussion was very well considered and I appreciated the discussion of theoretical explanations of the findings. Again, I don’t think it requires any substantive changes.

As a point of accuracy, Hing et al. (2014) also recruited 50 online gamblers from the general population, and at varying levels of gambling severity, so it isn’t accurate to say they only recruited disordered gamblers.

The section on methodological considerations and evaluation could be much shorter, e.g., the benefits of IPA do not need repeating here. And much of what’s in the last paragraph of this section repeats what has already been explained.

The authors should acknowledge the limitations of the participants all being university students, all but one being White-British, and all being male except one.

Future research strategies could be stated much more concisely, in a sentence or two.

Conclusion

I’d like to see a broader consideration of implications beyond just better safer gambling messages/strategies – or at least more clarification of the potential scope of these strategies. The authors acknowledge that gambling harm is not restricted to those with a GD diagnosis, in recognition that gambling is a public health issue and not just an issue of individual pathology. So, I was surprised that the implications did not extend into areas beyond self-regulatory strategies for individual gamblers such as messages, to also include the need for safer gambling products, environments, regulation and marketing – in line with a public health approach. I’m not suggesting a detailed discussion is needed – but at least an acknowledgement that safer gambling strategies extend beyond messages (which in any case are a very weak measure), to also include changes to gambling products, environments, advertising, etc.

At minimum, it would be appropriate to comment on how gambling advertisements, inducements and other marketing strategies could be curtailed or otherwise regulated to pose a lesser risk to consumers.

Manuscript length

The manuscript is currently very long (around 9,000 words) and this unfortunately detracts from its overall impact. While PONE does not have a strict word length, they do “encourage you to present and discuss your findings concisely”.

While I understand that qualitative research seeks to provide in-depth insights, the expression itself in the manuscript tends to be overly wordy and long-winded. The authors could trim a lot of the length by tightening up expression to remove unnecessary words and lengthy phrasing. It’s surprising how much word length can be trimmed without losing valuable content, by an edit focused solely on achieving this.

Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the article under review is an appreciable approach to an area of gambling not yet studied in too much depth. That is, the narratives and experiences of active gamblers regarding the impact on their own behaviour of the advertising tactics employed by the gambling industry. Furthermore, the methodology employed is intended to complement experimental research and to guide policy decisions on regulating gambling marketing and 'responsible gambling' messages. However, certain weaknesses are found, mainly in the selection of the sample and the justification of the methodology used; which, in my opinion, would require corrections.

Therefore, my recommendation is that the weaknesses observed should be corrected or reformulated in order to face a subsequent evaluation that will decide on the eventual acceptance of the publication of this article in Plos One with greater robustness.

In terms of the most important issues, I specify below what should be corrected or improved in my view:

1. Although a laudable effort is made to credit the goodness and usefulness of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) in this study, I think there is one aspect that is not sufficiently justified. In the introduction, lines 100-101, there is talk of subtle marketing strategies: how can IPA bring out mechanisms during an interview that, by their nature, are beyond conscious control?

2. I miss a consistent justification of the sample size. At this point, some explanation of data reaching saturation would have been necessary (in fact, it is requested in the journal's guidelines for qualitative studies). In this sense, the following reference could be useful to the authors in addressing the problem: Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(4), 426-432.

3. Continuing with the choice of the sample, I infer that the resulting homogeneity in age and gender of the sample is due to the interviewer sharing these characteristics with the participants and 'this allowed a rapport to be developed that encouraged detailed experiential responses from participants' (lines 213-214). I believe that this claim would need to be supported by the available evidence. On the other hand, I note that, although one inclusion criterion is being in the 18-34 age range because 'as individuals from this group report gambling mostly in response to marketing' (lines 134-135), most of the group are 21-22 years old. Is this not missing valuable information from people who are slightly older and probably more experienced (23-34 years old)?

4. I would appreciate more details on informed consent: was there a possibility to leave the interview at any time without any penalty, were there people who did not sign the consent form and therefore did not participate in the study?

5. The journal's publication guidelines recommend following the checklist 'Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ)'. In the revised article, some points are missing, for example, the experience and training of the interviewer, in particular with the methodology used; the already mentioned data saturation; or whether the transcripts were reviewed by the participants to allow them for further comments or corrections.

6. I feel that there is a missing reference to support this statement: ‘However, assessing the impact of marketing upon gambling behaviour proves to be methodologically challenging due to the wide-ranging marketing strategies employed’ (lines 50-52).

7. I find that in the section 'Methodological considerations and evaluation' little space is given to the limitations of the methodology and the study. I think that these limitations could be explored a little more in depth. On the other hand, mention is made of a subject whose information seems to be of poor quality. Has the possibility of eliminating him/her from the sample been considered? And, if kept, with what justification?

Minor issues would be the following:

8. I find that several doi links are broken, check.

9. Check the in-text citations and/or references of Lopez-Gonzalez, Gambling Comission, Ferris & Wynne, Pietkiewicz et al., Killick, Holland and Hocevar.

10. On line 276, James does not have a severity score of 1.

11. According to the publication guidelines, the article should contain an acknowledgements section.

12. Also according to the publication guide: ‘PLOS uses the reference style outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also referred to as the “Vancouver” style’.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts and especially note their commitment to transparency in science by making such a wealth of valuable information available to other researchers.

I hope that my comments make sense and serve to improve the text. And I confirm my availability to re-examine the revised version.

Reviewer #3: I consider this qualitative study to be a relevant contribution to our understanding of the subjective impact of gambling marketing on consumers. I would like to highlight the transparency of the method and the public accessibility of the results. I also think that this study has several strengths, such as the way it is written and the comprehensive theoretical background. However, and although it is not a serious problem for my general positive opinion of the work, I wonder why the authors did not use some psychometric instruments as a way to support qualitative analyses. I also think that the generalizability of the data could be problematic since the study is carried out with university students. I miss a greater emphasis on this limitation. Finally, I wonder if it is possible to better relate these findings to the gambling harm prevention literature focused on gambling products, along the lines, for example, of the recent study by Luquiens et al, 2022. In my opinion, this study also supports the idea of protecting vulnerable users from the pernicious effect of some advertising strategies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nerilee Hing

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jose López-Guerrero

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Frequent gamblers’ perceptions of the role of gambling marketing in their behaviour: an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

PONE-D-22-31833R1

Dear Dr. Houghton,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

José C. Perales

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for thoroughly addressing my suggested changes. The manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the literature and I recommend its publication. Well done to the authors on a rigorous and insightful study.

Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the authors have satisfactorily addressed the requirements raised. My main concern was in relation to the justification of the sample size and whether data saturation had been reached. I believe that the authors have convincingly argued their rationale and this has been reflected in the manuscript. I would just like to add that the use of data saturation in phenomenological studies is an open debate: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. Personally, it has helped me to learn about conflicting or complementary positions in the qualitative methodology area.

It only remains for me to congratulate the authors for this work, their commitment to the open science paradigm, and to wish them a fruitful future in the field of problem gambling.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nerilee Hing

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jose López-Guerrero

**********