Although craving is an important feature of problem gambling, there is a paucity of research investigating craving to gamble. A major stumbling block for craving research in gambling has been the lack of a methodologically sound, multidimensional measure of gambling-related craving. This article reports the development of the Gambling Craving Scale (GACS). In Study 1 (N = 220), a factor analysis revealed the emergence of a 9-item scale with 3 factors: Anticipation, Desire, and Relief. An important finding was that the GACS predicted problem gambling severity, depression, and positive and negative affect. In Study 2 (N = 145), the factor structure of the GACS was confirmed using a community sample of gamblers. In Study 3 (N = 46), GACS scores significantly predicted persistence at play on a virtual slot machine in the face of continued loss. Specifically, the more participants craved to gamble, the longer they engaged in play. The implications of craving for the development and maintenance of problem gambling severity are discussed.
Background and Aims Few meta‐analyses have been conducted to pool the most constant risk factors for problem gambling. The present meta‐analysis summarizes effect sizes of the most frequently assessed problem gambling risk factors, ranks them according to effect size strength and identifies any differences in effects across genders. Method A random‐effects meta‐analysis was conducted on jurisdiction‐wide gambling prevalence surveys on the general adult population published until March 2019. One hundred and four studies were eligible for meta‐analysis. The number of participants varied depending on the risk factor analyzed, and ranged from 5327 to 273 946 (52% female). Weighted mean odds ratios were calculated for 57 risk factors (socio‐demographic, psychosocial, gambling activity and substance use correlates), allowing them to be ranked from largest to smallest with regard to their association with problem gambling. Results The highest odds ratio (OR) was for internet gambling [OR = 7.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.24, 10.99, P < 0.000] and the lowest was for employment status (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.87, 1.22, P = 0.718). The largest effect sizes were generally in the gambling activity category and the smallest were in the socio‐demographic category. No differences were found across genders for age‐associated risk. Conclusions A meta‐analysis of 104 studies of gambling prevalence indicated that the most frequently assessed problem gambling risk factors with the highest effect sizes are associated with continuous‐play format gambling products.
BackgroundThe purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances.MethodsBibliographic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to April 2012) and gray literature sources were searched. We included randomized controlled trials that opportunistically screened adolescents or adults and then provided a one-to-one, verbal BI to those at risk of substance-use harm. Of interest was the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances (for example, drugs prohibited by international law), excluding alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Interventions comprised four or fewer sessions and were compared with no/delayed intervention or provision of information only. Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results were synthesized narratively. Evidence was interpreted according to the GRADE framework.ResultsWe identified 8,836 records. Of these, five studies met our inclusion criteria. Two studies compared BI with no BI, and three studies compared BI with information only. Studies varied in characteristics such as substances targeted, screening procedures, and BI administered. Outcomes were mostly reported by a single study, leading to limited or uncertain confidence in effect estimates.ConclusionsInsufficient evidence exists as to whether BIs, as part of SBIRT, are effective or ineffective for reducing the use of, or harms associated with nonmedical use of, psychoactive substances when these interventions are administered to nontreatment-seeking, screen-detected populations. Updating this review with emerging evidence will be important.Trial registrationCRD42012002414
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.