Acceptability and Perceived Usefulness of a Digital Gambling Harm Minimization Tool: Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Gambling consumers show low uptake and engagement with tools designed to support safer gambling practices and reduce the risk of experiencing gambling-related harms. We used co-design principles to design and develop a digital tool for safer gambling (BetWell) to overcome known barriers to tool uptake, including a focus on gambling problems. BetWell aims to increase awareness of personal gambling expenditure and knowledge of how gambling products function to support informed decision-making about gambling. It was designed based on behavioral change theories and presents a personalized amalgamation of gambling expenditure relative to alternative spend options, and psychoeducational information via a quiz. Objective: This exploratory study assessed the perceived acceptability and usefulness of the newly designed digital tool and gathered end-user feedback to improve future prototypes. The study explored whether usability, gambling severity, financial well-being, gambling frequency, spend tracking, activity statement use, and the number of accounts held impacted acceptability and perceived usefulness, and the extent to which these factors independently predicted acceptability and perceived usefulness when controlling for life satisfaction, gambling satisfaction, and demographic variables. Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited 140 gambling consumers (mean 41.3, SD 10.9 years) via the market research panel CRNRSTONE. Participants accessed and engaged with BetWell and completed an online survey to share their perceptions towards the tool. Results: The overall acceptability (mean 32/40, SD 5.2) and perceived usefulness (mean 20/25, SD 3.9) of the tool were considered "good" and "useful," respectively by participants. Individuals with higher gambling severity scores were more likely to perceive the tool as useful than those of the lower risk categories. Individuals with higher financial well-being were more likely to perceive the tool as useful and acceptable compared to those in lower financial well-being categories. Higher usability scores corresponded with higher tool acceptability. Previous efforts to monitor and track gambling spend was associated with acceptability and perceived usefulness. Gambling frequency and the number of gambling accounts held were not related to acceptability and perceived usefulness. Qualitative feedback included participant identified suggestions for improvements such as a need for interactive elements, a more detailed view of gambling expenditure, automation of activity statement upload functionality, more challenging and positively framed quiz content, and an emphasis on data security. Conclusions: The study provides preliminary support for the acceptability and perceived usefulness of a newly developed tool to increase awareness of gambling expenditure and knowledge on how gambling products function, providing directions for future improvements to the tool.