A systematic review evaluating screening instruments for gambling disorder finds lack of adequate evidence

Otto, Jean; Smolenski, Derek J.; Wilson, Anna; Evatt, Daniel P.; Campbell, Marjorie S.; Beech, Erin H.; Workman, Don E.; O’Gallagher, Kevin; Belsher, Bradley E.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.022

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has documented the comorbidity between mental disorders and/or substance misuse with gambling 32‐34 . Considering the low prevalence of gambling disorders and the high correlation with mental illness, behavioral problems, and substance misuse, policymakers would benefit from considering a targeted identification strategy that is more efficient and cost‐effective than population‐level screening 35 . This would involve focusing screening efforts on high‐risk subpopulations; those which exhibit a greater prevalence of gambling disorder than the general population, including Service members with a mental disorder or substance misuse history or those stationed near gambling venues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic, Behavioral, and Proximal Risk Factors for Gambling Disorder in the US Military

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives To estimate the diagnostic prevalence and incidence of gambling disorder among United States service members and to identify associated risk factors, including demographics, history of mental illness or substance misuse, and proximity to legalized gambling vicinities. Methods Gambling disorder cases comprised active component Service members who received a pathological or problem gambling diagnosis between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2015. There were 901 cases (392 incidents) during the study period. Controls were matched on the case military entrance date (N = 43,564). Geospatial distance between gambling venue and military treatment facilities were calculated, then multivariable logistic regression and survival analyses were conducted. Results The 10‐year prevalence of gambling disorder was 6.6 per 100,000. Men were 3.5 times more likely than women to receive a gambling disorder diagnosis. Other risk factors included age over 24, Asian or Black race, formerly married, and enlisted rank. The odds of gambling disorder increased with duration and proximity to gambling venues, ranging from 2.0 to 3.9. Service members with prior substance misuse or mental health conditions were 3.9 times and 6.3 times more likely to receive a disordered gambling diagnosis than those without substance misuse or mental illness history, respectively. Conclusions and Scientific Significance The results of this study reveal that proximity to gambling venues and slot machines on bases, as well as a history of substance misuse or mental disorders, are important risk factors for gambling disorder in the US military. Department of Defense screening policies that focus on high‐risk populations are appropriate. (Am J Addict 2021;00:00–00)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic, Behavioral, and Proximal Risk Factors for Gambling Disorder in the US Military

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional strength concerns the research strategy from a wider perspective. As noted above, the gambling research field encompasses a large number of diverse measures and outcomes (Molander et al, 2019;Otto et al, 2020;Pallesen et al, 2005;Pickering et al, 2017), making it difficult to synthesize research findings, for example in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of trial outcomes. This problem has also been identified in the area of hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption, and is being addressed by an initiative to establish a minimum set of core outcomes for wide use in treatment outcome studies (Shorter et al, 2019).…”

Section: Preliminary Testing and Final Draft Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An additional limitation was that few measures were validated in relation to the new DSM-5 criteria for GD (Molander et al, 2019). Even more recently, a systematic review identified 31 different screening instruments from 60 studies, finding that only 3 instruments had been validated against the DSM-5 criteria for GD (Otto et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test: Results from an international Delphi and consensus process

Molander

Volberg

Månsson

et al. 2020

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Diverse instruments are used to measure problem gambling and Gambling Disorder intervention outcomes. The 2004 Banff consensus agreement proposed necessary features for reporting gambling treatment efficacy. To address the challenge of including these features in a single instrument, a process was initiated to develop the Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT), as an instrument analogous to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test.Methods: Gambling experts from 10 countries participated in an international tworound Delphi (n = 61; n = 30), rating 30 items proposed for inclusion in the GDIT.Gambling researchers and clinicians from several countries participated in three consensus meetings (n = 10; n = 4; n = 3). User feedback was obtained from individuals with experience of problem gambling (n = 12) and from treatment-seekers with Gambling Disorder (n = 8).Results: Ten items fulfilled Delphi consensus criteria for inclusion in the GDIT (M ≥ 7 on a scale of 1-9 in the second round). Item-related issues were addressed, and four more items were added to conform to the Banff agreement recommendations, yielding a final draft version of the GDIT with 14 items in three domains: gambling behavior, gambling symptoms and negative consequences. Conclusions:This study established preliminary construct and face validity for the GDIT.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the identification of individuals experiencing or at risk of problem gambling at an early stage has the potential to reduce harm and reduce demand on health, care and support services. Recent reviews in the field have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening instruments designed to identify “problem gambling” in clinical settings [ 13 , 39 ] e.g. Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen [ 4 ], but have not considered their applicability in wider care setting, nor their acceptability from the point of view of service providers or gamblers themselves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should screening for risk of gambling-related harm be undertaken in health, care and support settings? A systematic review of the international evidence

Blank

Baxter

Woods

et al. 2021

Addict Sci Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Gambling-related harm is an increasing recognised problem internationally. Recent years have seen an explosion in opportunities to gamble, both in person and online. Health and other care settings have the potential to act as screening sites to identify and support gamblers who may be at high risk of experiencing gambling-related harm. This study aimed to identify interventions to screen for risk of gambling-related harm in the general population which may be delivered in health, care and support settings. Methods Systematic review. Searches of key databases and grey sources since 2012 were undertaken in October 2019. Electronic database searches generated a total of 5826 unique hits. Nine studies published 2013–2019, along with thirteen grey literature documents met our eligibility criteria. The criteria were setting (health, care and support settings), participants (any attendee in help, care and support settings), interventions (screening to identify risk of harm from gambling behaviours) and outcome measures (gambling behaviours, service use). Results Three papers evaluating screening interventions delivered in general practice (repeat visits and written advice), mental health service (the use of screening tools to identify risk of harm), and substance abuse treatment (intensive outpatient treatment for substance use disorders or methadone maintenance) indicated evidence of potential effectiveness. Six papers supported the feasibility and acceptability of delivering interventions in various settings. Grey literature reports described the implementation of interventions such as training materials, and transfer of interventions developed for substance abuse populations by practitioners. Conclusions Health, care and support services offer potentially important contexts in which to identify and offer support to people who are at risk of gambling related harm. Screening interventions appear feasible and acceptable in a range of community and healthcare settings for those at risk of gambling harm. Evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening in these populations should therefore be prioritised.

show abstract

A systematic review evaluating screening instruments for gambling disorder finds lack of adequate evidence

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

Demographic, Behavioral, and Proximal Risk Factors for Gambling Disorder in the US Military

Demographic, Behavioral, and Proximal Risk Factors for Gambling Disorder in the US Military

Development of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test: Results from an international Delphi and consensus process

Should screening for risk of gambling-related harm be undertaken in health, care and support settings? A systematic review of the international evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About