An Examination of Clinician Responses to Problem Gambling in Community Mental Health Services

Abstract

<jats:p>Gambling problems commonly co-occur with other mental health problems. However, screening for problem gambling (PG) rarely takes place within mental health treatment settings. The aim of the current study was to examine the way in which mental health clinicians respond to PG issues. Participants (n = 281) were recruited from a range of mental health services in Victoria, Australia. The majority of clinicians reported that at least some of their caseload was affected by gambling problems. Clinicians displayed moderate levels of knowledge about the reciprocal impact of gambling problems and mental health but had limited knowledge of screening tools to detect PG. Whilst 77% reported that they screened for PG, only 16% did so “often” or “always” and few expressed confidence in their ability to treat PG. However, only 12.5% reported receiving previous training in PG, and those that had, reported higher levels of knowledge about gambling in the context of mental illness, more positive attitudes about responding to gambling issues, and more confidence in detecting/screening for PG. In conclusion, the findings highlight the need to upskill mental health clinicians so they can better identify and manage PG and point towards opportunities for enhanced integrated working with gambling services.</jats:p>

Strengthening the service experiences of women impacted by gambling-related intimate partner violence

“…Health and social service workers (outside of specialist and integrated DFV services) rarely ask about IPV, and service users are frequently reluctant to disclose in the absence of direct questioning [ 26 , 27 ]. While studies have shown a high occurrence of IPV in family members seeking help for problem gambling issues [ 7 ], screening for problem gambling in community services and healthcare settings is ad-hoc, rarely happens or is at the discretion of individual practitioners [ 28 , 29 ].Lack of integrated services and inadequate triage and referral systems have also been identified as significant barriers to effective service responses [ 27 , 30 ]. This situation is highly problematic, given that non-DFV services may see a more significant volume of women impacted by IPV than specialist DFV services do [ 21 ].…”

Treatment and help services for gambling during COVID-19: Experiences of gamblers and their concerned significant others

“…In Finland, 3% of the population experience gambling problems directly, with an additional 21% of concerned significant others (CSOs) experiencing harm due to the gambling of others ( Salonen et al, 2020 ). The treatment and prevention of particularly individual-level harms is conducted within the realm of social welfare and mental health services, consisting of social work, medical help, screening for problem gambling, peer support, debt counselling, child services, but also preventive work (also Dowling et al, 2017 ; Johnstone & Regan, 2020 ; Manning et al, 2020 ). Most services are aimed at those individuals who gamble at high-risk levels or those diagnosed as problem or pathological gamblers, but professionals are rarely trained specialists in gambling-related issues ( Manning et al, 2020 ).…”

Gambling and Gambling Problem Perception Questionnaire as a tool to evaluate professionals’ attitudes towards problem gamblers and training programmes in Japan

“…Studies measuring healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards people with gambling problems are very limited, and at the same time use either non-standardised measurements ( Achab et al, 2014 ; Manning et al, 2020 ; Orford et al, 2003 ; Tikkinen et al, 2012 ) or take a qualitative approach ( Rodda et al, 2018 ). None of the studies we found applied standardised scales.…”