Background and AimsConsiderable variation of outcome variables used to measure recovery in the gambling treatment literature has precluded effective cross‐study evaluations and hindered the development of best‐practice treatment methodologies. The aim of this systematic review was to describe current diffuse concepts of recovery in the gambling field by mapping the range of outcomes and measurement strategies used to evaluate treatments, and to identify more commonly accepted indices of recovery.MethodsA systematic search of six academic databases for studies evaluating treatments (psychological and pharmacological) for gambling disorders with a minimum 6‐month follow‐up. Data from eligible studies were tabulated and analysis conducted using a narrative approach. Guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) were adhered to.ResultsThirty‐four studies were reviewed systematically (RCTs = 17, comparative designs = 17). Sixty‐three different outcome measures were identified: 25 (39.7%) assessed gambling‐specific constructs, 36 (57.1%) assessed non‐gambling specific constructs, and two instruments were used across both categories (3.2%). Self‐report instruments ranged from psychometrically validated to ad‐hoc author‐designed questionnaires. Units of measurement were inconsistent, particularly in the assessment of gambling behaviour. All studies assessed indices of gambling behaviour and/or symptoms of gambling disorder. Almost all studies (n = 30; 88.2%) included secondary measures relating to psychiatric comorbidities, psychological processes linked to treatment approach, or global functioning and wellbeing.ConclusionsIn research on gambling disorders, the incorporation of broader outcome domains that extend beyond disorder‐specific symptoms and behaviours suggests a multi‐dimensional conceptualization of recovery. Development of a single comprehensive scale to measure all aspects of gambling recovery could help to facilitate uniform reporting practices across the field.

Adolescent problem gambling prevalence rates are reportedly five times higher than in the adult population. Several school-based gambling education programs have been developed in an attempt to reduce problem gambling among adolescents; however few have been empirically evaluated. The aim of this review was to report the outcome of studies empirically evaluating gambling education programs across international jurisdictions. A systematic review following guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement searching five academic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Medline, PsycINFO, and ERIC, was conducted. A total of 20 papers and 19 studies were included after screening and exclusion criteria were applied. All studies reported intervention effects on cognitive outcomes such as knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs. Only nine of the studies attempted to measure intervention effects on behavioural outcomes, and only five of those reported significant changes in gambling behaviour. Of these five, methodological inadequacies were commonly found including brief follow-up periods, lack of control comparison in post hoc analyses, and inconsistencies and misclassifications in the measurement of gambling behaviour, including problem gambling. Based on this review, recommendations are offered for the future development and evaluation of school-based gambling education programs relating to both methodological and content design and delivery considerations.

Background: Smoking is a significant health and economic burden in Australia. Studies of smoking cessation practices in dental settings have primarily concentrated on dentists rather than other oral health practitioner (OHP) groups (dental hygienists, dental therapists and oral health therapists). The aim of this study was to measure Australian OHPs' attitudes, behaviours, interest and barriers to delivering smoking cessation interventions. Methods: Members of the two peak professional bodies representing Australian OHPs were invited to participate in an anonymous online questionnaire. Results: There were discrepancies between practitioner attitudes and current smoking cessation practices. While the majority of practitioners (90.1%) frequently screened for smoking behaviour, fewer (51.1%) assisted patients to quit smoking. The principal form of assistance was referral to Quitline (45.7%) or to a general medical practitioner (44.4%). The most prevalent barriers identified were lack of knowledge of pharmacological treatments (45.8%) and lack of access to smoking cessation resources (44.2%). Contrary to international studies, time and financial incentive were not commonly cited barriers to delivering smoking cessation interventions. Conclusions: This survey identifies a need for continuing education in smoking cessation practice. Dissemination of policies, guidelines and resources may assist OHPs to become more engaged and confident in delivering smoking cessation interventions as part of their routine practice.

Study preregistration is one of several “open science” practices (e.g., open data, preprints) that researchers use to improve the transparency and rigour of their research. As more researchers adopt preregistration as a regular research practice, examining the nature and content of preregistrations can help identify strengths and weaknesses of current practices. The value of preregistration, in part, relates to the specificity of the study plan and the extent to which investigators adhere to this plan. We identified 53 preregistrations from the gambling studies field meeting our predefined eligibility criteria and scored their level of specificity using a 23-item protocol developed to measure the extent to which a clear and exhaustive preregistration plan restricts various researcher degrees of freedom (RDoF; i.e., the many methodological choices available to researchers when collecting and analysing data, and when reporting their findings). We also scored studies on a 32-item protocol that measured adherence to the preregistered plan in the study manuscript. We found that gambling preregistrations had low specificity levels on most RDoF. However, a comparison with a sample of cross-disciplinary preregistrations (N = 52; Bakker et al., 2020) indicated that gambling preregistrations scored higher on 12 (of 29) items. Thirteen (65%) of the 20 associated published articles or preprints deviated from the protocol without declaring as much (the mean number of undeclared deviations per article was 2.25, SD = 2.34). Overall, while we found improvements in specificity and adherence over time (2017-2020), our findings suggest the purported benefits of preregistration—including increasing transparency and reducing RDoF—are not fully achieved by current practices. Using our findings, we provide 10 practical recommendations that can be used to support and refine preregistration practices.

Patients are receptive to dental practitioners inquiring about smoking behaviour and offering advice on quitting. Smoking patients showed considerable motivation and interest in quitting smoking, particularly in the context of health problems related to smoking being identified. These results should encourage dentists to raise the issue with their patients.