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

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Journal of Behavioral Addictions Pub Date : 2024-03-29 Print Date: 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1556/2006.2024.00008
Agathe Mansueto, Gaëlle Challet-Bouju, Jean-Benoit Hardouin, Marie Grall-Bronnec
{"title":"Definitions and assessments of recovery from gambling disorder: A scoping review.","authors":"Agathe Mansueto, Gaëlle Challet-Bouju, Jean-Benoit Hardouin, Marie Grall-Bronnec","doi":"10.1556/2006.2024.00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>While the concept of recovery is receiving increasing attention in the context of gambling disorder (GD), no consensus has yet been reached regarding its definition. This scoping review aims to map the literature on GD recovery, identify gaps, and provide insights for a more holistic and patient-centred perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of three databases was conducted (PubMed, PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect). Based on the method by which the results of these studies were produced, the studies included were sorted into four categories (quantitative, instrument validation, qualitative, and mixed studies) and subsequently examined using conceptual analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred thirteen articles were included in this research after the screening process. In the quantitative and instrument validation studies, recovery was defined or operationalized in terms of abstinence, the absence of a GD diagnosis, or mild GD severity, or by reference to treatment outcomes or controlled gambling. A meta-synthesis of the results of the qualitative studies revealed four core features of recovery (insight, empowerment and commitment, wellbeing enhancement, and reconsideration of the issue of relapse).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Discrepancies in definitions, outcomes, and variables used were evident across studies. Additionally, the quantitative and standardized approaches employed in most studies exhibited severe limitations with regard to defining recovery from the subjective and multidimensional perspectives of people recovering from GD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This lack of definitional clarity emphasizes the necessity for further qualitative research. This research should encompass multiple stakeholder perspectives to develop a working definition promoting recovery from a holistic, patient-centred, and tailored approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":15049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Addictions","volume":" ","pages":"354-412"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11220822/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Addictions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2024.00008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: While the concept of recovery is receiving increasing attention in the context of gambling disorder (GD), no consensus has yet been reached regarding its definition. This scoping review aims to map the literature on GD recovery, identify gaps, and provide insights for a more holistic and patient-centred perspective.

Methods: A systematic search of three databases was conducted (PubMed, PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect). Based on the method by which the results of these studies were produced, the studies included were sorted into four categories (quantitative, instrument validation, qualitative, and mixed studies) and subsequently examined using conceptual analysis.

Results: One hundred thirteen articles were included in this research after the screening process. In the quantitative and instrument validation studies, recovery was defined or operationalized in terms of abstinence, the absence of a GD diagnosis, or mild GD severity, or by reference to treatment outcomes or controlled gambling. A meta-synthesis of the results of the qualitative studies revealed four core features of recovery (insight, empowerment and commitment, wellbeing enhancement, and reconsideration of the issue of relapse).

Discussion: Discrepancies in definitions, outcomes, and variables used were evident across studies. Additionally, the quantitative and standardized approaches employed in most studies exhibited severe limitations with regard to defining recovery from the subjective and multidimensional perspectives of people recovering from GD.

Conclusions: This lack of definitional clarity emphasizes the necessity for further qualitative research. This research should encompass multiple stakeholder perspectives to develop a working definition promoting recovery from a holistic, patient-centred, and tailored approach.

赌博障碍康复的定义和评估:范围审查。
背景和目的:尽管康复这一概念在赌博障碍(GD)中越来越受到关注,但人们尚未就其定义达成共识。本范围综述旨在对有关赌博障碍康复的文献进行梳理,找出差距,并从更全面和以患者为中心的角度提出见解:对三个数据库(PubMed、PsycINFO 和 ScienceDirect)进行了系统检索。根据这些研究结果的产生方法,将所收录的研究分为四类(定量研究、工具验证研究、定性研究和混合研究),然后使用概念分析法进行研究:经过筛选,共有 113 篇文章被纳入本研究。在定量研究和工具验证研究中,康复的定义或操作方法是戒断、无 GD 诊断或 GD 严重程度轻微,或参考治疗结果或控制赌博。对定性研究结果的元综合显示了康复的四个核心特征(洞察力、赋权和承诺、幸福感增强以及重新考虑复发问题):讨论:各项研究在定义、结果和使用的变量方面存在明显差异。此外,大多数研究采用的定量和标准化方法在从广东话康复者的主观和多维角度定义康复方面表现出严重的局限性:结论:定义的不明确强调了进一步定性研究的必要性。这项研究应涵盖多个利益相关者的观点,以制定一个有效的定义,从全面、以患者为中心和量身定制的角度促进康复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
91
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of Journal of Behavioral Addictions is to create a forum for the scientific information exchange with regard to behavioral addictions. The journal is a broad focused interdisciplinary one that publishes manuscripts on different approaches of non-substance addictions, research reports focusing on the addictive patterns of various behaviors, especially disorders of the impulsive-compulsive spectrum, and also publishes reviews in these topics. Coverage ranges from genetic and neurobiological research through psychological and clinical psychiatric approaches to epidemiological, sociological and anthropological aspects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信