T02-P-06 Marital and sexual life of pathological gamblers

Trudel, Gilles; Poirier-Arbour, Alisson; Harvey, Pascale; Boyer, Richard

doi:10.1016/s1158-1360(08)72696-3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anger (Harvey et al, 2007), financial sacrifices, feelings of guilt, blame, loss of trust (Dickson-Swift et al, 2005), depression, and anxiety (Lee, 2014) are all among the consequences frequently reported by gamblers' partners. In terms of the relationship, there is poorer sexual interaction, weaker dyadic adjustment (Hodgins et al, 2007;Lee, 2014;Ponti et al, 2021;Trudel et al, 2008), and recurrent conflicts (Afifi et al, 2010;Dowling et al, 2009;Kalischuk, 2010;Wenzel et al, 2008) fueled by the gambler's lies (Dickson-Swift et al, 2005;Holdsworth et al, 2013;Lorenz & Shuttlesworth, 1983;Lorenz & Yaffee, 1988;Patford, 2009).…”

Section: What Is the Public Health Significance Of This Article?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of a randomized controlled trial of integrative couple treatment for pathological gambling (ICT-PG): 10-month follow-up.

Tremblay¹,

Dufour²,

Bertrand³

et al. 2023

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Assess the efficacy of integrative couple treatment for pathological gambling (ICT-PG) in comparison to treatment provided in an individual approach. Method: Eighty couples were assigned randomly to ICT-PG (n = 44, Mage = 42.2, SD [13.4], n male gamblers = 29) or individual treatment (n = 36, Mage = 39.9 SD [13.0], n male gamblers = 31) with follow-ups at 4- and 10-months postadmission regarding the severity of gambling, the individual and couple’s well-being. Linear mixed and generalized estimating equation models for repeated measures were applied to take into account the dependency of observations. Protocol was preregistered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT02240485). Results: Participants in both treatments generally improved over time with reductions on gambling expanses from an initial $4,000–$600 in a 90-day period following treatment, without diﬀerence across treatment conditions in money spent on gambling or frequency of gambling. However, on different indices of gambling severity, the participants in ICT-PG showed more improvement at follow-ups, with better control capacity (OR = 2.57, p < .0129) and greater reduction in gambling craving (OR = 5.83, p < .0001) and erroneous cognitions (OR = 2.63, p < .0063). The couple treatment was associated with a better individual well-being (e.g., less depression for partners, OR = 5.53; p < .0351, and gamblers, OR = 2.37; p < .0334) and couple well-being (e.g., better dyadic satisfaction for partners, OR = 2.02; p < .0057, and gamblers, OR = 3.07; p < .0212). Conclusions: The results underline the necessity to provide a greater diversity of treatment for gamblers and their partner. Further research should focus on identifying active components of ICT-PG and widen its provision to gamblers with concurrent addiction disorders.

show abstract