Abstract:There is a paucity of research examining prospective predictors of problem gambling. The current study utilised a large longitudinal data set (N = 2328) to examine a large range of adolescent risk and protective factors for problem gambling in young adulthood. These risk and protective factors covered the domains of the community, family, school, peer group and individual. Numerous predictors associated with the family, school and peer‐individual were statistically significant in analyses adjusted for gender a… Show more
“…Interestingly, however, alcohol use, drug use, and distress tolerance were not related to problem gambling severity in the overall sample, problem gamblers with personality disorders, or problem gamblers without personality disorders. These are unexpected findings, given consistent previous evidence of the high comorbidity between problem gambling and alcohol and substance use problems Lorains et al 2011;Scholes-Balog et al 2014;Scholes-Balog et al 2015a, b) and emerging evidence evidence that difficulty with emotion regulation is also a feature of problem gambling (Brown et al 2014;de Lisle et al 2012de Lisle et al , 2014Francis et al 2015;Lee et al 2008). Although the lack of significant findings relating to alcohol and drug use is likely due to the psychometric limitations of their measurement using single unvalidated items, the reason for the failure to identify a significant relationship between problem gambling and distress tolerance is less clear, particularly given that psychological distress was so strongly related to problem gambling severity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have shown that individuals with BPD display significantly higher levels of substance use problems compared to individuals with other types of personality disorders (Walter et al 2009;Zanarini et al 2010). Similarly, alcohol and substance use disorders are commonly comorbid with problem gambling, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal research Lorains et al 2011;Scholes-Balog et al 2014;Scholes-Balog et al 2015a, b). A recent meta-analysis indicated that 21.2 % of treatmentseeking problem gamblers reported alcohol use disorders and 7.0 % reported substance (non-alcohol) use disorders .…”
The primary aims of this study were to examine the prevalence of personality disorders in problem gamblers, to explore the relationship between personality disorders and problem gambling severity, and to explore the degree to which the psychological symptoms highlighted in the biosocial developmental model of borderline personality disorder (impulsivity, distress tolerance, substance use, PTSD symptoms, psychological distress and work/social adjustment) are associated with problem gambling. A secondary aim was to explore the strength of the relationships between these symptoms and problem gambling severity in problem gamblers with and without personality disorder pathology. Participants were 168 consecutively admitted problem gamblers seeking treatment from a specialist outpatient gambling service in Australia. The prevalence of personality disorders using the self-report version of the Iowa Personality Disorders Screen was 43.3 %. Cluster B personality disorders, but not Cluster A or C personality disorders, were associated with problem gambling severity. All psychological symptoms, except alcohol and drug use, were significantly higher among participants with personality disorder pathology compared to those without. Finally, psychological distress, and work and social adjustment were significantly associated with problem gambling severity for problem gamblers with personality disorder pathology, while impulsivity, psychological distress, and work and social adjustment were significantly associated with problem gambling severity for those without personality disorder pathology. High rates of comorbid personality disorders, particularly Cluster B disorders, necessitate routine screening in gambling treatment services. More complex psychological profiles may complicate treatment for problem gamblers with comorbid personality disorders. Future research should examine the applicability of the biosocial developmental model to problem gambling in community studies.
“…Interestingly, however, alcohol use, drug use, and distress tolerance were not related to problem gambling severity in the overall sample, problem gamblers with personality disorders, or problem gamblers without personality disorders. These are unexpected findings, given consistent previous evidence of the high comorbidity between problem gambling and alcohol and substance use problems Lorains et al 2011;Scholes-Balog et al 2014;Scholes-Balog et al 2015a, b) and emerging evidence evidence that difficulty with emotion regulation is also a feature of problem gambling (Brown et al 2014;de Lisle et al 2012de Lisle et al , 2014Francis et al 2015;Lee et al 2008). Although the lack of significant findings relating to alcohol and drug use is likely due to the psychometric limitations of their measurement using single unvalidated items, the reason for the failure to identify a significant relationship between problem gambling and distress tolerance is less clear, particularly given that psychological distress was so strongly related to problem gambling severity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have shown that individuals with BPD display significantly higher levels of substance use problems compared to individuals with other types of personality disorders (Walter et al 2009;Zanarini et al 2010). Similarly, alcohol and substance use disorders are commonly comorbid with problem gambling, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal research Lorains et al 2011;Scholes-Balog et al 2014;Scholes-Balog et al 2015a, b). A recent meta-analysis indicated that 21.2 % of treatmentseeking problem gamblers reported alcohol use disorders and 7.0 % reported substance (non-alcohol) use disorders .…”
The primary aims of this study were to examine the prevalence of personality disorders in problem gamblers, to explore the relationship between personality disorders and problem gambling severity, and to explore the degree to which the psychological symptoms highlighted in the biosocial developmental model of borderline personality disorder (impulsivity, distress tolerance, substance use, PTSD symptoms, psychological distress and work/social adjustment) are associated with problem gambling. A secondary aim was to explore the strength of the relationships between these symptoms and problem gambling severity in problem gamblers with and without personality disorder pathology. Participants were 168 consecutively admitted problem gamblers seeking treatment from a specialist outpatient gambling service in Australia. The prevalence of personality disorders using the self-report version of the Iowa Personality Disorders Screen was 43.3 %. Cluster B personality disorders, but not Cluster A or C personality disorders, were associated with problem gambling severity. All psychological symptoms, except alcohol and drug use, were significantly higher among participants with personality disorder pathology compared to those without. Finally, psychological distress, and work and social adjustment were significantly associated with problem gambling severity for problem gamblers with personality disorder pathology, while impulsivity, psychological distress, and work and social adjustment were significantly associated with problem gambling severity for those without personality disorder pathology. High rates of comorbid personality disorders, particularly Cluster B disorders, necessitate routine screening in gambling treatment services. More complex psychological profiles may complicate treatment for problem gamblers with comorbid personality disorders. Future research should examine the applicability of the biosocial developmental model to problem gambling in community studies.
“…Importantly, the mobile telephone‐only sample seems to include respondents characterized by characteristics deemed typically ‘hard to reach’ by conventional landline sampling approaches. They also display demographic 10, 20, 36 and psychosocial 10, 12, 14, 16, 37, 38 profiles that are associated typically with problem gambling. Indeed, the finding that the mobile‐only sample reported higher rates of problem gambling 12, 14 and endorsement of problem gambling measure items 12 suggest that the gambling field has been omitting the exact population most likely to endorse gambling problems.…”
Background, aims and designThe increase in mobile telephone‐only households may be a source of bias for traditional landline gambling prevalence surveys. Aims were to: (1) identify Australian gambling participation and problem gambling prevalence using a dual‐frame (50% landline and 50% mobile telephone) computer‐assisted telephone interviewing methodology; (2) explore the predictors of sample frame and telephone status; and (3) explore the degree to which sample frame and telephone status moderate the relationships between respondent characteristics and problem gambling.Setting and participantsA total of 2000 adult respondents residing in Australia were interviewed from March to April 2013.MeasurementsParticipation in multiple gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI).FindingsEstimates were: gambling participation [63.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 61.4–66.3], problem gambling (0.4%, 95% CI = 0.2–0.8), moderate‐risk gambling (1.9%, 95% CI = 1.3–2.6) and low‐risk gambling (3.0%, 95% CI = 2.2–4.0). Relative to the landline frame, the mobile frame was more likely to gamble on horse/greyhound races [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4], casino table games (OR = 5.0), sporting events (OR = 2.2), private games (OR = 1.9) and the internet (OR = 6.5); less likely to gamble on lotteries (OR = 0.6); and more likely to gamble on five or more activities (OR = 2.4), display problem gambling (OR = 6.4) and endorse PGSI items (OR = 2.4‐6.1). Only casino table gambling (OR = 2.9) and internet gambling (OR = 3.5) independently predicted mobile frame membership. Telephone status (landline frame versus mobile dual users and mobile‐only users) displayed similar findings. Finally, sample frame and/or telephone status moderated the relationship between gender, relationship status, health and problem gambling (OR = 2.9–7.6).ConclusionGiven expected future increases in the mobile telephone‐only population, best practice in population gambling research should use dual frame sampling methodologies (at least 50% landline and 50% mobile telephone) for telephone interviewing.
“…La existencia de una relación parental pobre se asocia con factores que contribuyen al desarrollo de conductas adictivas. Los estudios han observado que el grupo formado por probables personas jugadoras patológicas jóvenes y el grupo de riesgo de desarrollo de la ludopatía, percibían un apoyo familiar menor (Scholes-Balog et al, 2014). Muchos jóvenes en esta situación percibían a sus progenitores y a otros familiares importantes como poco cariñosos, severos o demasiado críticos, sintiéndose emocionalmente distanciados o distantes de los miembros de la familia.…”
Section: Variables Infl Uyentes Y Factores De Riesgounclassified
“…Sin embargo, desde hace un tiempo se ha observado un incremento notable del número de jóvenes que sufren o están al borde de la ludopatía (Kuss y Griffi ths, 2012;Muñoz-Molina, 2008;Petit et al, 2015;Scholes-Balog et al, 2014;Splevins et al, 2010). En torno a otros "consumos de riesgo", como el de tabaco y alcohol, se han generado amplios consensos sobre la necesidad de alertar de los daños asociados y prohibir el acceso a los menores de edad, promoviendo así un "consumo responsable".…”
ResumenLos juegos de azar online son una actividad muy popular entre los adolescentes. Sin embargo, desde hace un tiempo se ha observado un incremento notable del número de jóvenes que sufren o están al borde de la ludopatía. En este artículo revisamos el impacto de estas prácticas sobre los jóvenes y discutimos la conveniencia de promover un concepto de "juego responsable" que permita alertar de sus riesgos e impida efi cazmente el acceso a los menores de edad. Los principales factores asociados al juego problemático son la edad de inicio, el entorno familiar, la infl uencia de la publicidad, el consumo de sustancias estimulantes y las actitudes del grupo de iguales. Los poderes públicos y la misma industria del juego deben considerar estos factores y concretar el desarrollo de planes que promuevan un modelo de juego seguro y controlado. La publicidad debe tener en cuenta criterios de protección de los consumidores sabiendo que, aun cuando les está prohibido, los menores acceden con facilidad al juego de azar online. Las Administraciones Públicas deben establecer políticas y sensibilizar a la sociedad. Los agentes sociales implicados deben aportar mecanismos de prevención y sensibilización hacia un problema del que existe aún poca conciencia social y una excesiva despreocupación. Palabras clave: consumo; riesgo; juegos de azar online; internet; menores; adicción; responsabilidad social corporativa; publicidad.Risk Consumption: Children and Online Gaming.The Problem of "Responsible Gambling"
AbstractOnline gambling is a popular activity among adolescents. However, there has been a notable increase in the number of young people who suffer or are on the verge of pathological gambling. We review the impact of online gambling on young people and discuss the desiderability of the concept of "gambling
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.