A Meta-analysis of Brief Personalized Feedback Interventions for Problematic Gambling - PubMed (original) (raw)

Meta-Analysis

. 2019 Jun;35(2):447-464.

doi: 10.1007/s10899-018-09818-9.

Affiliations

Meta-Analysis

A Meta-analysis of Brief Personalized Feedback Interventions for Problematic Gambling

Samuel C Peter et al. J Gambl Stud. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Personal Feedback Interventions (PFIs) have been widely used to reduce the amount of time and money individuals spend on gambling. A central component of these interventions is personalized information about an individual's gambling behavior, often in comparison to others' gambling. The purpose of the present review and meta-analysis was to evaluate these interventions in terms of content, mode of delivery, target sample, and efficacy. Sixteen interventions from 11 studies were reviewed. We found a small, statistically significant effect in favor of PFIs versus control (d = 0.20, 95% CI 0.12, 0.27). Six moderators of intervention efficacy were explored. These interventions appeared to be most efficacious when used in populations of greater gambling severity, when individuals were provided with gambling-related educational information, and when used in conjunction with motivational interviewing. Factors associated with reduced efficacy include in-person delivery of feedback without motivational-interviewing and informing participants of their score on a psychological measure of gambling severity. Efficacy did not vary as a function of college or community samples. PFIs are a low cost, easily disseminated intervention that can be used as a harm-reduction strategy. However, more substantial effects may be attained if used as part of a larger course of therapy.

Keywords: Brief treatments; Gambling; Meta-analysis; Personalized feedback.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Chapter 24: Multiple outcomes or timepoints within a study. In Introduction to meta analysis (pp. 225–238). Hoboken: Wiley.
    1. Borsari, B., Murphy, J. G., & Barnett, N. P. (2007). Predictors of alcohol use during the first year of college: Implications for prevention. Addictive Behaviors, 32(10), 2062–2086. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Celio, M. A., & Lisman, S. A. (2014). Examining the efficacy of a personalized normative feedback intervention to reduce college student gambling. Journal of American College Health, 62(3), 154–164. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cohen, J. (1987). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    1. Cowlishaw, S., Merkouris, S., Dowling, N., Anderson, C., Jackson, A., & Thomas, S. (2012). Psychological therapies for pathological gambling and problem gambling (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012, 1–91.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources