Rory A. Pfund, David P. Forman, Shelby K. Whalen, James M. Zech, Meredith K. Ginley, Samuel C. Peter, Nicholas W. McAfee, James P. Whelan
{"title":"Effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques for problem gambling and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Rory A. Pfund, David P. Forman, Shelby K. Whalen, James M. Zech, Meredith K. Ginley, Samuel C. Peter, Nicholas W. McAfee, James P. Whelan","doi":"10.1111/add.16221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>To measure the effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques (CBTs) on gambling disorder severity and gambling behavior at post-treatment and follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Seven databases and two clinical trial registries were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies and unpublished studies of randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool assessed risk of bias in the included studies. A random effect meta-analysis with robust variance estimation was conducted to measure the effect of CBTs relative to minimally treated or no treatment control groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-nine studies representing 3991 participants were identified. CBTs significantly reduced gambling disorder severity (<i>g</i> = −1.14, 95% CI = −1.68, −0.60, 95% prediction interval [PI] = −2.97, 0.69), gambling frequency (<i>g</i> = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.80, −0.27, 95% PI = −1.48, 0.40) and gambling intensity (<i>g</i> = −0.32, 95% CI = −0.51, −0.13, 95% PI = −0.76, 0.12) at post-treatment relative to control. CBTs had no significant effect on follow-up outcomes. Analyses supported the presence of publication bias and high heterogeneity in effect size estimates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Cognitive-behavioral techniques are a promising treatment for reducing gambling disorder and gambling behavior; however, the effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques on gambling disorder severity and gambling frequency and intensity at post-treatment is overestimated, and cognitive-behavioral techniques may not be reliably efficacious for all individuals seeking treatment for problem gambling and gambling disorder.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":"118 9","pages":"1661-1674"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16221","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims
To measure the effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques (CBTs) on gambling disorder severity and gambling behavior at post-treatment and follow-up.
Method
Seven databases and two clinical trial registries were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies and unpublished studies of randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool assessed risk of bias in the included studies. A random effect meta-analysis with robust variance estimation was conducted to measure the effect of CBTs relative to minimally treated or no treatment control groups.
Results
Twenty-nine studies representing 3991 participants were identified. CBTs significantly reduced gambling disorder severity (g = −1.14, 95% CI = −1.68, −0.60, 95% prediction interval [PI] = −2.97, 0.69), gambling frequency (g = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.80, −0.27, 95% PI = −1.48, 0.40) and gambling intensity (g = −0.32, 95% CI = −0.51, −0.13, 95% PI = −0.76, 0.12) at post-treatment relative to control. CBTs had no significant effect on follow-up outcomes. Analyses supported the presence of publication bias and high heterogeneity in effect size estimates.
Conclusions
Cognitive-behavioral techniques are a promising treatment for reducing gambling disorder and gambling behavior; however, the effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques on gambling disorder severity and gambling frequency and intensity at post-treatment is overestimated, and cognitive-behavioral techniques may not be reliably efficacious for all individuals seeking treatment for problem gambling and gambling disorder.
期刊介绍:
Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines.
Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries.
Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.