Brief interventions for problem gambling: A meta-analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)

Meta-Analysis

Brief interventions for problem gambling: A meta-analysis

Lena C Quilty et al. PLoS One. 2019.

Abstract

Background: Brief interventions have been increasingly investigated to promote early intervention in gambling problems; an accurate estimate of the impact of these interventions is required to justify their widespread implementation. The goal of the current investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of in-person brief interventions for reducing gambling behaviour and/or problems, by quantifying the aggregate effect size associated with these interventions in the published literature to date.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials including the following design features were identified via systematic review: an adult sample experiencing problems associated with gambling; an in-person individual psychosocial intervention of brief duration (≤3 sessions); a control/comparison group; and an outcome related to gambling behaviour and/or problems.

Results: Five records compared brief interventions to assessment only control; using a random effect model, brief interventions were associated with a small but statistically significant reduction in gambling behaviour across short-term follow-up periods versus assessment only control (g = -.19, 95% CI [-.37, -.01]). Aggregate effect sizes for gambling problems and long-term follow-up periods were not statistically significant. Five records compared brief interventions to longer active interventions; there was no significant difference between brief interventions and longer active interventions.

Conclusions: Results supported the efficacy of brief interventions for problem gambling compared to inactive control in the reduction of gambling behaviour; no differences were found across brief versus longer interventions for both gambling behaviour and problems. While these findings must be interpreted in the context of the limited number of studies and small magnitude of the combined effect sizes, the current meta-analysis supports the further investigation of the public health impact of these cost-effective interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Institute of Medicine, Division of Mental Health and Behavioral Medicine. Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems National Academy Press; 1990.
    1. Vendetti J, McRee B, Hernandez A, Karuntzos G. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) implementation models and work flow processes: Commonalities and variations. Addiction Sci Clin Prac. 2013;8:A79.
    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA). National registry of evidence‐based programs and practices Intervention summary: Project ASSERT. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA; 2011.
    1. Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LA, Elliott JC, Garey L, Carey MP. Face-to-face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: A meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32:690–703. 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.08.001 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Young MM, Stevens A, Galipeau J, Pirie T, Garritty C, Singh K, et al. Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances: A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014;3:50 10.1186/2046-4053-3-50 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

This study was funded by a Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO) Knowledge Hub Award. GREO approved the research proposal, including objectives and methodology, but had no role in the study design, data extraction and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

LinkOut - more resources