Temporal stability of pathological scratchcard gambling among adult scratchcard buyers two years later

DeFuentes-Merillas, Laura; Koeter, Maarten W. J.; Schippers, Gerard M.; Brink, Wim van den

doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00601.x

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Slutske et al 34 study was not included in these tests because it did not locate any baseline Level 3 gamblers. The analyses revealed that, in the studies by Winters et al, 3 8 Abbott et al, 2 7 DeFuentes-Merrillas et al, 29 and Shaffer and Hall, 32 the observed proportion of Level 3 gamblers at baseline who reduced their level of severity exceeded the study's corresponding margin of error (that is, improvement among Level 3 gamblers that could be attributed to chance; study Level 3 margins of error were 38%, 28%, 24%, and 20%, respectively). Therefore, for every study, the proportion of Level 3 gamblers improving was greater than zero (See Table 2).…”

Section: Results: the Persistence Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies by Slutske et al, 34 Abbott et al, 27 Winters et al, 38 Shaffer and Hall, 32 and DeFuentes-Merrillas et al, 29 the observed proportions of Level 2 gamblers at baseline who increased their level of severity never exceeded the studies' corresponding margin of error (that is, worsening among Level 2 gamblers that could be attributed to chance; as noted previously, study Level 2 margins of error were 30%, 21%, 15%, 9%, and 9%, respectively). Therefore, we did not find evidence that the proportion of Level 2 gamblers worsening was greater than zero.…”

Section: Results: the Progression Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We excluded DeFuentes-Merillas et al 29 from this analysis because that study did not include baseline data on Level 0-1 gamblers. The studies by Abbott et al, 27 Shaffer and Hall, 32 and Slutske et al 34 indicated that classification worsening rates were not different for Level 0-1 and Level 2 gamblers (÷ 2 = 1.32, df 2, P > 0.10; ÷ 2 = 1.58, df 2, P > 0.10; and ÷ 2 = 0.18, df 2, P > 0.10, respectively).…”

Section: Results: the Progression Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 5 identified peer-reviewed articles that met our criteria were Abbott et al, 27 DeFuentes-Merillas et al, 29 Shaffer and Hall, 32 Slutske et al, 34 and Winters et al 38 The 5 studies included in the current analysis used various assessment time points, populations, and measures of problem gambling (see Table 1). …”

Section: Method: a New Examination Of The Extant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Five nontreatment prospective studies from the peer-reviewed literature are now available to clarify the stability of disordered gambling symptoms. These studies report sufficient summary information to advance our knowledge about the nature and stability of disordered gambling in nontreatment samples.…”

Section: Professional and Conventional Wisdom About Disordered Gamblimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Stability and Progression of Disordered Gambling: Lessons from Longitudinal Studies

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 53, no 1, janvier 2008 52Objective: Few studies have explicitly examined the stability (that is, the tendency for individuals to stay at one diagnostic level as opposed to moving to another improved or worsened level) or progression of disordered gambling; however, conventional wisdom holds that disordered gambling is intractable and escalating. The objective of this study was to examine these assumptions. Method:We reviewed 5 recent prospective studies of gambling behaviour among nontreatment samples for evidence related to the stability and progression of disordered gambling.Results: Our review found no evidence to support the assumption that individuals cannot recover from disordered gambling (that is, the persistence assumption), no evidence to support the assumption that individuals who have more severe gambling problems are less likely to improve than individuals who have less severe gambling problems (that is, the selective-stability assumption), and no evidence to support the assumption that individuals who have some gambling problems are more likely to worsen than individuals who do not have gambling problems (that is, the progression assumption). Conclusion:Contrary to professional and conventional wisdom suggesting that gambling problems are always progressive and enduring, this review demonstrates instability and multidirectional courses in disordered gambling. Can J Psychiatry 2008;53(1):52-60Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article. Clinical Implications· There is considerable movement in and out of more severe and less severe levels of gambling disorder. · The current evidence suggests that the general course of disordered gambling is in the direction of improved classifications: for individuals who experience maladaptive behaviour patterns (that is, Level 2 and Level 3 gamblers), the likelihood of improvement is high. · To avoid positively biasing treatment-outcome research, research that involves estimating treatment outcome should measure or, if a controlled experiment is not possible, acknowledge the extent to which people with disorders improve on their own. Limitations· More research is needed to characterize the nature, determinants, and stability of the worsening of disordered gambling. · Future research should use prospective designs to examine correlates of recovery patterns. · It is possible that, even though the individuals in the studies tended toward improvement in their gambling behaviour, they might have replaced their disordered gambling with a different type of disordered behaviour (for example, smoking, compulsive shopping, or excessive drinking).

show abstract

Section: Results: the Persistence Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%