On the stability and the progression of gambling problems: longitudinal relations between different problems related to gambling

Abstract

Background and Aims In psychiatric diagnosis, different symptoms of gambling problems are usually aggregated into a single indicator of disorder severity, which has resulted in a knowledge gap on the specific roles of the different issues with which some gamblers struggle. This study estimated the association between baseline symptoms of gambling problems and (i) other symptoms, (ii) the overall severity of gambling problems after 12 months, and the estimated stability rates of various gambling problems after (iii) 12 months and (iv) 5 years. Design and Setting Secondary analysis of data derived from the Swedish Longitudinal Gambling Study (SWELOGS), a prospective representative cohort study conducted between 2008 and 2014 in Sweden. Participants A total of 8165 respondents from 16–84 years of age recruited in a stratified random sampling procedure. Among them, 6021 answered the 1‐year follow‐up survey and 3559 answered the 5‐year follow‐up survey. Measurements Nine symptoms related to gambling were assessed using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (excessive gambling, tolerance, chasing, loans, insight, health problems, criticism, financial problems, and guilt). Findings Excessive gambling, tolerance, chasing, loans and guilt significantly increased the risk of a range of other symptoms. Chasing and tolerance also tripled the risk of transitioning to more severe gambling problems (OR = 2.9, 95% CI = [1.5–5.5], P = 0.001 and OR = 2.7, 95% CI = [1.6–4.5], P < 0.001, respectively). Stability rates of the different symptoms ranged between 22% (95% CI = [12–31%]) and 42% (95% CI = [35–48%]) after 1 year and 3% (95% CI = [0–10%]) and 19% (95% CI = [7–30%]) after 5 years with chasing being the most stable problem (42% [95% CI = (35–48%)] after 1 year and 17% [95% CI = (6–28%)] after 5 years). Conclusions In psychiatric diagnosis, four symptoms of problem gambling (chasing, tolerance, excessive gambling and guilt) appear to have prognostic validity in assessing gambling‐related risk. The symptoms of tolerance and chasing appear to increase the risk of progressing to more severe gambling problems.

Using “Markers of Harm” to Track Risky Gambling in Two Cohorts of Online Sports Bettors

“…This hypothesis was based on longitudinal studies using survey measures of problem gambling (LaPlante, Nelson, et al, 2008). A recent longitudinal survey study found an inverted-U relationship (Sleczka & Romild, 2021), such that low-and moderate-risk gamblers show more variability in their symptom severity relative to problem gamblers and non-risky gamblers. This is consistent with some of our two-lines tests on raw scores suggesting that positive associations between means and standard deviations level off or reverse directions at higher average risk levels.…”

Shame and Blame in Gambling: Relationship with Emotion Regulation and Gambling Motives

“…Much of the language used by these participants was strongly moralised, and the words 'blame' and 'shame' were used repeatedly in these participants' accounts. Moreover, it has been shown that persecution, tolerance, excessive gambling and guilt (four symptoms of problem gambling) appear to have prognostic validity in the assessment of gambling-related risk (Sleczka & Romild, 2021). Shame was also found to play a mediating role in the relationships between depression and problem gambling (Bilevicius et al, 2018).…”

“…Consistent with previous research, cited above, it is hypothesised that gambling severity, blame and shame, emotion regulation and gambling motives will be positively correlated with each other. Furthermore, based on the literature reviewed (De Ridder & Deighton, 2021;Jauregui & Estevez, 2019;Schlagintweit et al, 2017;Sleczka & Romild, 2021;Weatherly & Cookman, 2014), it is expected to find that emotion regulation mediates the relationship between gambling severity and shame and blame at the present time and in the past 2 weeks. Finally, the clinical population is expected to show the highest levels of shame and blame (De Ridder & Deighton, 2021), gambling motives (Jauregui et al, 2020) and difficulties in emotional regulation (Marchica et al, 2019;Sancho et al, 2019).…”

El consumo de loot boxes como una nueva forma de azar en los videojuegos

“…El consumo de las cajas botín parece estar asociado a consecuencias negativas en los jugadores (Schwiddessen y Karius, 2018;Zendle et al, 2018;, sin embargo, los efectos específicos, tanto a corto como a largo plazo, todavía no han sido suficientemente estudiados. No obstante, dado que las loot boxes pueden ser consideradas como una forma de juego de azar (Griffiths, 2018), algunas de sus consecuencias podrían ser extrapolables, entre ellas, la culpabilidad (Sleczka y Romild, 2020), la pérdida de control (Moreau, Chauchard, Sévigny y Giroux, 2020) y la sensación de malestar (Oksanen, Savolainen, Sirola y Kaakinen, 2018). En la investigación realizada por Yücel et al (2019) puede encontrarse una revisión pormenorizada de los elementos claves de la adicción.…”

“…Específicamente, se hipotetiza que un mayor nivel socioeconómico (Meduna et al, 2019), un mayor número de horas de juego (Li et al, 2019), observar a otros jugadores abrir cajas (King et al, 2018) y la inclusión de nuevos ítems (ej., aspectos de armas, personajes) se asociará con una mayor compra/gasto; y 2) Analizar los efectos del uso abusivo de loot boxes sobre la salud psicoemocional de los jugadores. Concretamente, se plantea que, dadas las similitudes entre las cajas botín y el juego de azar tradicional, los jugadores que compran loot boxes y no obtienen el artículo deseado experimentarán emociones negativas similares a las de los jugadores de azar, como culpabilidad (Sleczka et al, 2020), pérdida de control (Moreau et al, 2020) y sensación de malestar percibido (Oksanen et al, 2018).…”