Does cognitive-behavioral treatment affect putative mechanisms of change among individuals with problem gambling? A systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis
{"title":"Does cognitive-behavioral treatment affect putative mechanisms of change among individuals with problem gambling? A systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><strong>Objective:</strong> The current study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for problem gambling and gambling disorder and whether it produced different outcomes than minimal or no treatment controls on three putative change mechanisms: 1) gambling cognitions, 2) coping, and 3) self-efficacy. <strong>Method:</strong> Studies were identified from five bibliographic databases (i.e., Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). Included studies were randomized controlled trials of CBT that included posttreatment data on putative mechanisms. Between-group Hedges’s <em>g</em> effect sizes were calculated to examine outcomes of CBT relative to minimal or no treatment control on gambling cognitions, coping, and self-efficacy at posttreatment. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. <strong>Results:</strong> Fifteen studies, representing 1,536 participants, were eligible for analysis. Participants in CBT had more favorable gambling cognitions (<em>g</em> = -0.41), coping behaviors (<em>g</em> = 0.27), and self-efficacy (<em>g</em> = 1.12) at posttreatment than minimal or no treatment control. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Results of the current study provided preliminary support for the effectiveness of CBT on three putative mechanisms of change among individuals experiencing problem gambling and gambling disorder. Although the results were promising, there was significant heterogeneity in the magnitude of effect sizes for all three outcomes, and outcomes were not consistently assessed with psychometrically established assessment tools.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7155,"journal":{"name":"Addictive behaviors","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addictive behaviors","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030646032400159X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The current study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for problem gambling and gambling disorder and whether it produced different outcomes than minimal or no treatment controls on three putative change mechanisms: 1) gambling cognitions, 2) coping, and 3) self-efficacy. Method: Studies were identified from five bibliographic databases (i.e., Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). Included studies were randomized controlled trials of CBT that included posttreatment data on putative mechanisms. Between-group Hedges’s g effect sizes were calculated to examine outcomes of CBT relative to minimal or no treatment control on gambling cognitions, coping, and self-efficacy at posttreatment. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Fifteen studies, representing 1,536 participants, were eligible for analysis. Participants in CBT had more favorable gambling cognitions (g = -0.41), coping behaviors (g = 0.27), and self-efficacy (g = 1.12) at posttreatment than minimal or no treatment control. Conclusions: Results of the current study provided preliminary support for the effectiveness of CBT on three putative mechanisms of change among individuals experiencing problem gambling and gambling disorder. Although the results were promising, there was significant heterogeneity in the magnitude of effect sizes for all three outcomes, and outcomes were not consistently assessed with psychometrically established assessment tools.
期刊介绍：
Addictive Behaviors is an international peer-reviewed journal publishing high quality human research on addictive behaviors and disorders since 1975. The journal accepts submissions of full-length papers and short communications on substance-related addictions such as the abuse of alcohol, drugs and nicotine, and behavioral addictions involving gambling and technology. We primarily publish behavioral and psychosocial research but our articles span the fields of psychology, sociology, psychiatry, epidemiology, social policy, medicine, pharmacology and neuroscience. While theoretical orientations are diverse, the emphasis of the journal is primarily empirical. That is, sound experimental design combined with valid, reliable assessment and evaluation procedures are a requisite for acceptance. However, innovative and empirically oriented case studies that might encourage new lines of inquiry are accepted as well. Studies that clearly contribute to current knowledge of etiology, prevention, social policy or treatment are given priority. Scholarly commentaries on topical issues, systematic reviews, and mini reviews are encouraged. We especially welcome multimedia papers that incorporate video or audio components to better display methodology or findings.
Studies can also be submitted to Addictive Behaviors? companion title, the open access journal Addictive Behaviors Reports, which has a particular interest in ''non-traditional'', innovative and empirically-oriented research such as negative/null data papers, replication studies, case reports on novel treatments, and cross-cultural research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
