This systematic review aimed to identify early risk and protective factors (in childhood, adolescence or young adulthood) longitudinally associated with the subsequent development of gambling problems. A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature from 1990 to 2015 identified 15 studies published in 23 articles. Meta-analyses quantified the effect size of 13 individual risk factors (alcohol use frequency, antisocial behaviours, depression, male gender, cannabis use, illicit drug use, impulsivity, number of gambling activities, problem gambling severity, sensation seeking, tobacco use, violence, undercontrolled temperament), one relationship risk factor (peer antisocial behaviours), one community risk factor (poor academic performance), one individual protective factor (socio-economic status) and two relationship protective factors (parent supervision, social problems). Effect sizes were on average small to medium and sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were generally robust to the quality of methodological approaches of the included articles. These findings highlight the need for global prevention efforts that reduce risk factors and screen young people with high-risk profiles. There is insufficient investigation of protective factors to adequately guide prevention initiatives. Future longitudinal research is required to identify additional risk and protective factors associated with problem gambling, particularly within the relationship, community, and societal levels of the socio-ecological model.
Objective:The aim of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyse the prevalence of co-morbid psychiatric disorders (DSM-IV Axis I disorders) among treatment-seeking problem gamblers.Methods:A systematic search was conducted for peer-reviewed studies that provided prevalence estimates of Axis I psychiatric disorders in individuals seeking psychological or pharmacological treatment for problem gambling (including pathological gambling). Meta-analytic techniques were performed to estimate the weighted mean effect size and heterogeneity across studies.Results:Results from 36 studies identified high rates of co-morbid current (74.8%, 95% CI 36.5–93.9) and lifetime (75.5%, 95% CI 46.5–91.8) Axis I disorders. There were high rates of current mood disorders (23.1%, 95% CI 14.9–34.0), alcohol use disorders (21.2%, 95% CI 15.6–28.1), anxiety disorders (17.6%, 95% CI 10.8–27.3) and substance (non-alcohol) use disorders (7.0%, 95% CI 1.7–24.9). Specifically, the highest mean prevalence of current psychiatric disorders was for nicotine dependence (56.4%, 95% CI 35.7–75.2) and major depressive disorder (29.9%, 95% CI 20.5–41.3), with smaller estimates for alcohol abuse (18.2%, 95% CI 13.4–24.2), alcohol dependence (15.2%, 95% CI 10.2–22.0), social phobia (14.9%, 95% CI 2.0–59.8), generalised anxiety disorder (14.4%, 95% CI 3.9–40.8), panic disorder (13.7%, 95% CI 6.7–26.0), post-traumatic stress disorder (12.3%, 95% CI 3.4–35.7), cannabis use disorder (11.5%, 95% CI 4.8–25.0), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (9.3%, 95% CI 4.1–19.6), adjustment disorder (9.2%, 95% CI 4.8–17.2), bipolar disorder (8.8%, 95% CI 4.4–17.1) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (8.2%, 95% CI 3.4–18.6). There were no consistent patterns according to gambling problem severity, type of treatment facility and study jurisdiction. Although these estimates were robust to the inclusion of studies with non-representative sampling biases, they should be interpreted with caution as they were highly variable across studies.Conclusions:The findings highlight the need for gambling treatment services to undertake routine screening and assessment of psychiatric co-morbidity and provide treatment approaches that adequately manage these co-morbid disorders. Further research is required to explore the reasons for the variability observed in the prevalence estimates.
Despite overwhelming acceptance that gaming machines are associated with the highest level of problem gambling, the empirical literature provides inconclusive evidence to support the analogy linking electronic gaming to 'crack-cocaine'. Rigorous and systematic evaluation is required to establish definitively the absolute 'addictive' potential of gaming machines and the degree to which machine characteristics influence the development and maintenance of problem gambling behaviour.
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.
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.