Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)

Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis

Martina Goslar et al. J Behav Addict. 2017.

Abstract

Background and aims In the light of growing traditional and novel forms of gambling, the treatment of disordered gambling is gaining increasing importance and practical relevance. Most studies have examined face-to-face treatments. Although trials implementing self-guided treatments have recently been conducted, these options have not yet been systematically examined. The primary objective of this meta-analysis, therefore, was to analyze the efficacy of all types of psychological face-to-face and self-guided treatments. Methods A multilevel literature search yielded 27 randomized controlled studies totaling 3,879 participants to provide a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the short- and long-term efficacies of face-to-face and self-guided treatments for disordered gambling. Results As expected, the results revealed significantly higher effect sizes for face-to-face treatments (16 studies with Hedges's g ranging from 0.67 to 1.15) as compared with self-guided treatments (11 studies with Hedges's g ranging from 0.12 to 0.30) regarding the reduction of problematic gambling behavior. The intensity of treatment moderated the therapy effect, particularly for self-guided treatments. Discussion and Conclusions The results of this meta-analysis favor face-to-face treatments over self-guided treatments for the reduction of disordered gambling. Although the findings broaden the scope of knowledge about psychological treatment modalities for disordered gambling, further research is needed to identify the reasons for these differences with the goal to optimize the treatment for this disabling condition.

Keywords: disordered gambling; face-to-face treatments; meta-analysis; self-guided treatments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

<i>Figure 1</i>.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the study selection process

<i>Figure 2</i>.

Figure 2.

Overall effect sizes for each treatment modality and outcome at posttreatment. BA: brief advice; BS: booster sessions; CBT: cognitive-behavioral therapy; CCT: congruence couple therapy; CI: confidence interval; EDU: education program; G: group setting; I: individual counseling; map.: mapping group; Mass.: Massachusetts site; MFS: motivation, feedback, support; MI: motivational interviewing; Nev.: Nevada site; non-map.: non-mapping group; PFB: personalized feedback; PNFB: personalized normative feedback; RW: relative weight; TSF: 12-step facilitated therapy; WB: workbook

<i>Figure 2</i>.

Figure 2.

(Continued)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
    1. Abbott M., Bellringer M., Hodgins D., Palmer Du Preez K., Landon J., Sullivan S., Feigin V. (2012). Effectiveness of problem gambling brief telephone interventions: A randomised controlled trial. Final report prepared for the Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand: Retrieved from http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/effectiveness-pro...
    1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. Andersson G., Cuijpers P. (2009). Internet-based and other computerized psychological treatments for adult depression: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 38, 196–205. doi:<10.1080/16506070903318960> - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andersson G., Titov N. (2014). Advantages and limitations of Internet‐based interventions for common mental disorders. World Psychiatry, 13, 4–11. doi:<10.1002/wps.20083> - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

Funding sources: This research did not receive direct financial support from any funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

LinkOut - more resources