Teachers' Perceptions of Gambling-Related Risks Among Students With Special Educational Needs: An Exploratory Study.
Megan Dobson, Emily Arden-Close, Constantina Panourgia
Teachers recognised gambling risks in SEN students but ranked them below drugs and alcohol, and none had received gambling-specific training.
They saw SEN students as more vulnerable due to executive function and processing difficulties, but this reflects perception, not evidence of inherent risk.
Key findings
1Teachers acknowledged gambling-related risks but did not prioritise them compared with other behaviours they deemed riskier, and none had received any gambling-specific training during their teacher training or teaching positions.
2Teachers perceived SEN students as more susceptible to gambling-related risks than their typically developing peers, citing executive function limitations, processing difficulties, and greater susceptibility to obsession and fixation, particularly for students with Autism and ADHD.
3Teachers identified signs of gambling-related risks including behavioural changes, increased material possessions, and obsessive phone use, but also acknowledged that gambling may be easily hidden and hard to spot unless students talked about it openly.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 15 participants (11 female, 4 male), which limits transferability to the wider teacher population and under-represents male perspectives. Purposive sampling through professional networks may have over-recruited teachers with a particular interest in gambling, potentially excluding those with lower awareness. Only qualitative data were collected; no standardised measures were used to assess variables such as self-efficacy. SEN was treated as a broad category encompassing a wide range of learning and support needs, without breakdown by specific diagnosis. Findings reflect teachers' perceptions and professional experiences, not objective characteristics of SEN students; the authors warn against a deficit-based framing. A £20 Amazon voucher was offered as a recruitment incentive, which may have introduced self-selection bias.
Declared interests
Part-funded by GambleAware, a grant-making charity focused on preventing gambling harms through a public health model. The authors state they alone are responsible for the views expressed and that these do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read teachers' perceptions that SEN students are more vulnerable to gambling as evidence that SEN students are inherently at higher risk. The authors explicitly state these are perceptions formed by personal and professional experiences and the broader social context surrounding SEN, not objective characteristics, and they warn against endorsing a deficit-oriented framing of SEN students.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →