Internet-Based Delivery of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Compared to Monitoring, Feedback and Support for Problem Gambling: A Randomised Controlled Trial
- 634 Downloads
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of an Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy program (I-CBT) for the treatment of problem gambling, when compared to a waitlist control and an active comparison condition consisting of monitoring, feedback, and support (I-MFS). Participants (N = 174) were randomly allocated to the three conditions. Variables of interest were gambling outcome and related mental health measures. Participants in the active conditions (I-CBT and I-MFS) completed six online modules. Both I-CBT and I-MFS conditions resulted in significant treatment gains on gambling severity. However, I-CBT was also associated with reductions in a range of other gambling-related and mental health outcomes. Compared with I-MFS, I-CBT produced greater effects across seven outcomes measures, relating to gambling urges, cognitions, stress, and life satisfaction. I-CBT participants also rated the program as significantly more satisfactory. Treatment gains observed for both active conditions were found to be stable through to 12 month follow up. The results indicate that the benefits of I-CBT were more than simply the non-specific effects of engaging in online treatment or receiving motivation, feedback, and support. Online treatments for gambling may be a valuable tool in increasing help-seeking and treatment engagement in this population, and be integrated as part of stepped care approaches to treatment.
KeywordsPathological gambling Problem gambling e-Therapy e-Mental health Gambling disorder
We would like to thank the patients who participated in this study and the post graduate clinical students who helped in collecting data in this project.
This research was funded by the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland State Government, Australia.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
No conflicts of interests to declare.
- American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
- Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS (Version 2). Bonn: Bonn University, Dep. of Psychology.Google Scholar
- Frisch, M. B. (1994). QOLI: Quality of life inventory: manual and treatment guide. Pearson.Google Scholar
- Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American journal of Psychiatry, 144(9).Google Scholar
- Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Sydney: The Psychology Foundation of Australia.Google Scholar
- Myrseth, H., Brunborg, G. S., Eidem, M., & Pallesen, S. (2013). Description and pre-post evaluation of a telephone and Internet based treatment programme for pathological gambling in Norway: A pilot study. International Gambling Studies, 13(2), 205–220. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2012.759610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oei, T. P., Raylu, N., & Casey, L. M. (2010). Effectiveness of group and individual formats of a combined motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral treatment program for problem gambling: A randomized controlled trial. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 38(02), 233–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reilly, C., & Smith, N. (2013). The evolving definition of pathological gambling in the DSM-5. National center for responsible gaming, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Winters, K. C., Specker, S., & Stinchfield, R. (2002). Measuring pathological gambling with the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity (DIGS) (pp. 143–148). The downside: Problem and pathological gambling.Google Scholar