Latent Classes for the Treatment Outcomes in Women with Gambling Disorder and Buying/Shopping Disorder

Abstract

Background: The risk for behavioral addictions is rising among women within the general population and in clinical settings. However, few studies have assessed treatment effectiveness in females. The aim of this work was to explore latent empirical classes of women with gambling disorder (GD) and buying/shopping disorder (BSD) based on the treatment outcome, as well as to identify predictors of the different empirical groups considering the sociodemographic and clinical profiles at baseline. Method: A clinical sample of n = 318 women seeking treatment for GD (n = 221) or BSD (n = 97) participated. Age was between 21 to 77 years. Results: The four latent-classes solution was the optimal classification in the study. Latent class 1 (LT1, good progression to recovery) grouped patients with the best CBT outcomes (lowest risk of dropout and relapses), and it was characterized by the healthiest psychological state at baseline, the lowest scores in harm avoidance and self-transcendence, and the highest scores in reward dependence, persistence, self-directedness and cooperativeness. Latent classes 3 (LT3, bad progression to drop-out) and 4 (LT4, bad progression to relapse) grouped women with the youngest mean age, earliest onset of the addictive behaviors, and worst psychological functioning. Conclusions: GD and BSD are complex conditions with multiple interactive causes and impacts, which need wide and flexible treatment plans. Specific interventions should be designed according to the specific profiles of women for achieving early inclusion, retention and well-maintained long-term effects.

Definitions and assessments of recovery from gambling disorder: A scoping review

“…Although various studies did not define “recovery” directly in terms of a state of abstinence, they used abstinence as an outcome to measure the effectiveness of the intervention in question ( Dannon, Rosenberg, Schoenfeld, & Kotler, 2011 ; Hodgins & el-Guebaly, 2010 ; Jiménez-Murcia et al., 2007 ; Monnat et al., 2014 ; Oei & Gordon, 2008 ; Ouellet & Queloz, 2018 ; Sander & Peters, 2009 ). Similarly, the term “relapse”, when included as an outcome, was defined in most studies as the exact opposite of abstinence, that is, as any episode of gambling during treatment and/or follow-up ( Baño et al., 2021 ; Dannon et al., 2007 , 2011 ; De Wilde, Goudriaan, Sabbe, Hulstijn, & Dom, 2013 ; Gómez-Peña et al., 2012 ; Granero, Blaszczynski, et al., 2020 ; Granero et al., 2022 ; Granero, Valero-Solis, et al., 2020 ; Hodgins & el-Guebaly, 2010 ; Jiménez-Murcia, Aymamí, et al., 2012 ; Jiménez-Murcia, Bove, et al., 2012 ; Jiménez-Murcia et al., 2007 , 2010 , 2015 , 2019 ; Lara-Huallipe et al., 2022 ; Mallorquí-Bagué et al., 2018 , 2019 ; Mena-Moreno, Testa, et al., 2022 ; Mestre-Bach et al., 2019 , 2022 ; Oei & Gordon, 2008 ; Ouellet & Queloz, 2018 ; Sander & Peters, 2009 ; Tárrega et al., 2015 ; Vintró-Alcaraz, Mestre-Bach, et al., 2022 ).…”

“…(2021) France Longitudinal 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-year 87 participants “Sustained recovery”: The absence of GD (less than 4 criteria) at two consecutive follow-up visits “Relapse”: The reoccurrence of GD (the presence of at least 4 out of 9 criteria according to the DSM-5 “Gambling Disorder” section) at the N+1st visit following the absence of GD at the Nth visit Granero, Blaszczynski, et al. (2020) Spain Longitudinal 16-session intervention; postintervention 998 males participants “Relapse”: The occurrence of an episode of gambling activity during the CBT intervention; “Drop-out”: Not completing 75% of the programme's 16 therapeutic sessions Gambling severity (SOGS) Psychological distress and psychopathology (SCL-90-R) Granero et al. (2022) Spain Longitudinal 12-session intervention; postintervention 318 female participants (221 GD + 97 BSD) “Relapse”: Gambling episodes Granero, Valero-Solis, et al.…”

Features Linked to Treatment Outcomes in Behavioral Addictions and Related Disorders

“…Some studies explored both dropout and relapse using cluster-based or trajectory analyses. For example, two of four clusters identified in women with GD or CBSD had the poorest treatment outcomes, with more frequent dropout and relapse [78]. These clusters included women with more psychopathology, dysfunctional personality profiles (characterized by high scores on harm avoidance and novelty-seeking and low scores on self-directedness, persistence, and reward-dependence), and self-destructive behavior.…”