↓ Skip to main content

A comparative content analysis of media reporting of sports betting in Australia: lessons for public health media advocacy approaches

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
A comparative content analysis of media reporting of sports betting in Australia: lessons for public health media advocacy approaches
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4866-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L. David, Samantha L. Thomas, Melanie Randle, Steven J. Bowe, Mike Daube

Abstract

Harmful gambling is a significant public health issue. There has been widespread discussion in the Australian media about the extent and impact of sports betting on the Australian community, particularly relating to young men and children. Given the role that the media plays in influencing policy change and political agendas, and the acknowledgement that media based advocacy is a fundamental component of successful advocacy campaigns, this research aimed to investigate how different stakeholder groups discuss sports betting within the Australian print media. The study uses this information to provide recommendations to guide public health media advocacy approaches. A quantitative content analysis of print media articles was conducted during two significant Parliamentary Inquiries about sports betting - (1) The Joint Select Committee Inquiry into the Advertising and Promotion of Gambling Services in Sport (2012/2013), and (2) 'The Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering (2015/2016). A total of 241 articles from 12 daily Australian newspapers were analysed. Statistical analysis was used to compare frequency of, and changes in, themes, voices and perspectives over time. Discussions about the marketing and communication of sports betting was a main theme in media reporting (n = 165, 68.5%), while discussions about gambling reform decreased significantly across the two time periods (p < 0.0001). The presence of sports betting industry (p < 0.0001), sporting code (p < 0.0001) and public health expert (p = 0.001) voices all increased significantly across the two time periods. There were very few (n = 11, 4.6%) voices from those who had experienced gambling harm. Finally, while there were significantly fewer articles taking the perspective that regulation changes were needed to protect vulnerable sub-populations (p < 0.0001), articles that had a neutral perspective about the need for regulation change increased significantly across the two time periods (p < 0.0001). Mapping the media reporting of sports betting is important in developing effective public health advocacy approaches. This study indicates that discussions about the marketing strategies utilised by the sports betting industry was still a main theme in media articles. However, discussions relating to sports betting reforms, in particular to protect individuals who may be vulnerable to the harm associated with these products and their promotional strategies (for example children and young men) decreased during the time periods. Public health advocates may seek to address the decrease in media reports about reform by developing clear evidence-based messages about why regulatory reform is needed, as well as the potential consequences of not implementing reforms. Working with organisations to build capacity for people who have experienced gambling harm may help ensure that individuals with a lived experience of harm have an increased voice in the media.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 32%
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 11 35%
Social Sciences 6 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 6 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#882,288
of 12,181,658 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,037
of 8,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,435
of 280,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#38
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,181,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.