Table 2 Common determinant of problem behaviour approach

King and Hardy (2006)

Developed gambling action team (GAT) to address campus gambling

Prioritize in: (a) developing comprehensive gambling education program; (b) providing gambling related consultation; (c) developing problem gambling awareness approach; (d) ensuring compliance with local efforts, law and legislation

Participants: Students from University of Alabama campus

Effectiveness of the program was not evaluated

The program was comprehensive as it targeted: (a) awareness and information; b) skill development and education; c) capacity building, community development and institutional change; (d) social and public policy; prevention aimed at individuals at high risk

Turner et al. (2008a)

Examined a 1 h prevention program for PG, targeting gambling myths, poor coping skills, emotional distress and problem solving skills

N = 374 from grade 5 to 12 from 18 schools, divided into treatment and control group

Significant improvements on gambling misconceptions reported, F (1,360) = 6.8, p < 0.01, in the treatment group but no significant effect on gambling behaviour, coping skills and gambling attitudes

Turner et al. (2008a)

Examined a school-based educational program focusing on PG awareness, self-monitoring and coping skills and random chance knowledge

N = 201 students of age 15–18, divided into treatment and control group

Significant increased in knowledge in random chances, F(1, 9.4) = 14.7, p < .01, self-monitoring, F(1, 8.4) = 6.4, p < .05, and coping skills, F(1, 9.6) = 9.7, p < .02, reported in treatment group

Found a moderate to high impact on students who were at-risks

Williams et al. (2010)

Examined a school-based prevention program to prevent PG

Five to six interactive lessons: (1) history of gambling; (2) problem gambling; (3) gambling fallacies; (4) decision making and problem solving, and (5) barriers to good decision making and problem solving

N = 1240 students from grade 9–12 from 14 schools, divided into treatment and control group

Significant improvements in gambling knowledge, F(2, 1235) = 35.1, p < .001), gambling attitudes, F(2, 1235) = 15.4, p < .001, decision making, problem solving, F(2, 1235) = 6.29, p = .002, resistance to gambling fallacies F(2, 1235) = 34.4, p < .001, reported in treatment group. More negative attitudes towards gambling

Significant reduction in rates of gambling frequency, F(2, 1235) = 4.07, p = .017, and PG, χ ² (1 df) = 3.75, p = .053, reported in treatment group

Luk et al. (2011)

Examined a positive youth development program (P.A.T.H.S) to help students to develop intrapersonal, interpersonal skills and sense of personal autonomy

Focus group conducted to examine the impression and perceived benefits of the program

N = 232 secondary one students from two schools, 16 students selected for focus group sessions

Significant positive change in the social competency scores (p = .0001) compared to the pre-test

Significant reduction in life satisfaction scale and an increase in behavioral intention to drink alcohol and to gamble

Program was reported boring by some students

Improvements on interpersonal skills, emotion management and a sense of responsibility reported