This study provides a systematic review of the empirical evidence related to the association between problem gambling and intimate partner violence (IPV). We identified 14 available studies in the systematic search (8 for victimisation only, 4 for perpetration only and 2 for both victimisation and perpetration). Although there were some equivocal findings, we found that most of the available research suggests that there is a significant relationship between problem gambling and being a victim of IPV. There was more consistent evidence that there is a significant relationship between problem gambling and perpetration of IPV. Meta-analyses revealed that over one third of problem gamblers report being victims of physical IPV (38.1%) or perpetrators of physical IPV (36.5%) and that the prevalence of problem gambling in IPV perpetrators is 11.3%. Although the exact nature of the relationships between problem gambling and IPV is yet to be determined, the findings suggest that less than full employment and clinical anger problems are implicated in the relationship between problem gambling and IPV victimization and that younger age, less than full employment, clinical anger problems, impulsivity, and alcohol and substance use are implicated in the relationship between problem gambling and IPV perpetration. The findings highlight the need for treatment services to undertake routine screening and assessment of problem gambling, IPV, alcohol and substance use problems, and mental health issues and provide interventions designed to manage this cluster of comorbid conditions. Further research is also required to investigate the relationship between problem gambling and violence that extends into the family beyond intimate partners.

There exists only a small number of empirical studies investigating the patterns of family violence in problem gambling populations, although some evidence exists that intimate partner violence and child abuse are among the most severe interpersonal correlates of problem gambling. The current article reports on the Australian arm of a large-scale study of the patterns and prevalence of co-occurrence of family violence and problem gambling in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. The current study screened 120 help-seeking family members of problem gamblers in a range of clinical services for both family violence and problem gambling. The main results showed that 52.5% reported some form of family violence in the past 12 months: 20.0% reported only victimisation, 10.8% reported only perpetration and 21.6% reported both victimisation and perpetration of family violence. Parents, current and ex-partners were most likely to be both perpetrators and victims of family violence. There were no gender differences in reciprocal violence but females were more likely to be only victims and less likely to report no violence in comparison to males. Most of the 32 participants interviewed in depth, reported that gambling generally preceded family violence. The findings suggest that perpetration of family violence was more likely to occur as a reaction to deeply-rooted and accumulated anger and mistrust whereas victimisation was an outcome of gambler's anger brought on by immediate gambling losses and frustration. While multiple and intertwined negative family impacts were likely to occur in the presence of family violence, gambling-related coping strategies were not associated with the presence or absence of family violence. The implications of the findings for service providers are discussed.

The primary aim of this study was to explore the prevalence and patterns of family violence in treatment-seeking problem gamblers. Secondary aims were to identify the prevalence of problem gambling in a family violence victimisation treatment sample and to explore the relationship between problem gambling and family violence in other treatment-seeking samples. Clients from 15 Australian treatment services were systematically screened for problem gambling using the Brief Bio-Social Gambling Screen and for family violence using single victimisation and perpetration items adapted from the Hurt-Insulted-Threaten-Screamed (HITS): gambling services (n=463), family violence services (n=95), alcohol and drug services (n=47), mental health services (n=51), and financial counselling services (n=48). The prevalence of family violence in the gambling sample was 33.9% (11.0% victimisation only, 6.9% perpetration only, and 16.0% both victimisation and perpetration). Female gamblers were significantly more likely to report victimisation only (16.5% cf. 7.8%) and both victimisation and perpetration (21.2% cf. 13.0%) than male gamblers. There were no other demographic differences in family violence prevalence estimates. Gamblers most commonly endorsed their parents as both the perpetrators and victims of family violence, followed by current and former partners. The prevalence of problem gambling in the family violence sample was 2.2%. The alcohol and drug (84.0%) and mental health (61.6%) samples reported significantly higher rates of any family violence than the gambling sample, while the financial counselling sample (10.6%) reported significantly higher rates of problem gambling than the family violence sample. The findings of this study support substantial comorbidity between problem gambling and family violence, although this may be accounted for by a high comorbidity with alcohol and drug use problems and other psychiatric disorders. They highlight the need for routine screening, assessment and management of problem gambling and family violence in a range of services.