Here is a blog post about the article. And an excerpt:

In the traditional view, pathological gambling was a matter of exposure to the proper stimuli—it could happen to anyone. But as more and more gambling outlets and opportunities bloomed in Nevada, on reservations and riverboats, and in convenience stores, that view began to fall out of favor, because a funny thing happened. According to Shaffer and Martin, the prevalence of pathological gambling has remained stable over the past 35 years, even as opportunities to gamble have exploded. The lifetime prevalence rate of pathological gambling in the U.S. in the mid-1970s was 0.7%, say the authors, and by 2005, U.S. lifetime rates had actually fallen slightly, to 0.6% or less. Where was the concomitant explosion in the number of pathological gamblers? 

And here is a link to the abstract:

Gambling-related research has advanced rapidly during the past 20 years. As a result of expanding interest in pathological gambling (PG), stakeholders (e.g., clinicians, regulators, and policy makers) have a better understanding of excessive gambling, including its etiology (e.g., neurobiological/neurogenetic, psychological, and sociological factors) and trajectory (e.g., initiation, course, and adaptation to gambling exposure). In this article, we examine these advances in PG-related research and then consider some of the clinical implications of these advances. We consider criteria changes for PG recently proposed by the DSM-V Impulse Control Work Group for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V). We also review how clinicians can more accurately and efficiently diagnose clients seeking help for gambling-related problems by utilizing brief screens. Finally, we consider the importance of future research that can identify behavioral markers for PG. We suggest that identifying these markers will allow clinicians to make earlier diagnoses, recommend targeted treatments, and advance secondary prevention efforts.