Latent class analysis of gambling subtypes and impulsive/compulsive associations: Time to rethink diagnostic boundaries for gambling disorder?

Abstract

BackgroundGambling disorder has been associated with cognitive dysfunction and impaired quality of life. The current definition of non-pathological, problem, and pathological types of gambling is based on total symptom scores, which may overlook nuanced underlying presentations of gambling symptoms. The aims of the current study were (i) to identify subtypes of gambling in young adults, using latent class analysis, based on individual responses from the Structured Clinical Interview for Gambling Disorder (SCI-GD); and (ii) to explore relationships between these gambling subtypes, and clinical/cognitive measures.MethodsTotal 582 non-treatment seeking young adults were recruited from two US cities, on the basis of gambling five or more times per year. Participants undertook clinical and neurocognitive assessment, including stop-signal, decision-making, and set-shifting tasks. Data from individual items of the Structured Clinical Interview for Gambling Disorder (SCI-GD) were entered into latent class analysis. Optimal number of classes representing gambling subtypes was identified using Bayesian Information Criterion and differences between them were explored using multivariate analysis of variance.ResultsThree subtypes of gambling were identified, termed recreational gamblers (60.2% of the sample; reference group), problem gamblers (29.2%), and pathological gamblers (10.5%). Common quality of life impairment, elevated Barratt Impulsivity scores, occurrence of mainstream mental disorders, having a first degree relative with an addiction, and impaired decision-making were evident in both problem and pathological gambling groups. The diagnostic item ‘chasing losses’ most discriminated recreational from problem gamblers, while endorsement of ‘social, financial, or occupational losses due to gambling’ most discriminated pathological gambling from both other groups. Significantly higher rates of impulse control disorders occurred in the pathological group, versus the problem group, who in turn showed significantly higher rates than the reference group. The pathological group also had higher set-shifting errors and nicotine consumption.ConclusionsEven problem gamblers who had a relatively low total SCI-PG scores (mean endorsement of two items) exhibited impaired quality of life, objective cognitive impairment on decision-making, and occurrence of other mental disorders that did not differ significantly from those seen in the pathological gamblers. Furthermore, problem/pathological gambling was associated with other impulse control disorders, but not increased alcohol use. Groups differed on quality of life when classified using the data-driven approach, but not when classified using DSM cut-offs. Thus, the current DSM-5 approach will fail to discriminate a significant fraction of patients with biologically plausible, functionally impairing illness, and may not be ideal in terms of diagnostic classification. Cognitive distortions related to ‘chasing losses’ represent a particularly important candidate treatment target for ...

Neural circuitry and mechanisms of waiting impulsivity: relevance to addiction

“…Impulsivity has been shown to predict the development of compulsive drug-taking in experimental animals [83]. These two psychological constructs, impulsivity and compulsivity, are not only highly correlated in stimulant drug addiction, but also in a variety of other psychiatric disorders [130]. While impulsivity, as a personality trait, covers the spectrum from normal to maladaptive behaviour, the variation of compulsivity in the normal population is very low, and is expressed differently across different psychiatric disorders (e.g.…”

Gambling disorder, DSM-5 criteria and symptom severity

“…For example, jeopardizing important matters, experiencing withdrawal, and needing financial assistance were all associated with a more severe level of GD than were chasing losses or being preoccupied with gambling (Sleczka et al, 2015). In a sample of gamblers recruited from the general population, endorsement of the item 'social, financial, or occupational losses due to gambling' was most indicative of more severe GD [9].…”

What can be learned about gambling from a learning perspective? A narrative review

“…Neither has the interaction between instrumental and respondent conditioning been studied to any extent. We also failed to identify experiments targeting the process of "losschasing," which have been proposed as a key symptom of gambling disorder (Chamberlain, Stochl, Redden, Odlaug, & Grant, 2017). This must be considered a major shortcoming if researchers wish to understand the basic learning processes of gambling.…”