A Meta-analysis of Brief Personalized Feedback Interventions for Problematic Gambling
Personal Feedback Interventions (PFIs) have been widely used to reduce the amount of time and money individuals spend on gambling. A central component of these interventions is personalized information about an individual’s gambling behavior, often in comparison to others’ gambling. The purpose of the present review and meta-analysis was to evaluate these interventions in terms of content, mode of delivery, target sample, and efficacy. Sixteen interventions from 11 studies were reviewed. We found a small, statistically significant effect in favor of PFIs versus control (d = 0.20, 95% CI 0.12, 0.27). Six moderators of intervention efficacy were explored. These interventions appeared to be most efficacious when used in populations of greater gambling severity, when individuals were provided with gambling-related educational information, and when used in conjunction with motivational interviewing. Factors associated with reduced efficacy include in-person delivery of feedback without motivational-interviewing and informing participants of their score on a psychological measure of gambling severity. Efficacy did not vary as a function of college or community samples. PFIs are a low cost, easily disseminated intervention that can be used as a harm-reduction strategy. However, more substantial effects may be attained if used as part of a larger course of therapy.
KeywordsPersonalized feedback Gambling Meta-analysis Brief treatments
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments and comparable ethical standards.
- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Chapter 24: Multiple outcomes or timepoints within a study. In Introduction to meta analysis (pp. 225–238). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1987). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Cowlishaw, S., Merkouris, S., Dowling, N., Anderson, C., Jackson, A., & Thomas, S. (2012). Psychological therapies for pathological gambling and problem gambling (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012, 1–91.Google Scholar
- Hansen, N. B., Lambert, M. J., & Forman, E. M. (2002). The psychotherapy dose-response effect and its implications for treatment delivery services. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(3), 329–343.Google Scholar
- Hoyt, M. F. (2011). Brief psychotherapies. In S. B. Messer & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Essential psychotherapies (pp. 387–425). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, M. A., Patrick, M. E., Litt, D. M., Atkins, D. C., Kim, T., Blayney, J. A., et al. (2014). Randomized controlled trial of a web-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention to reduce alcohol-related risky sexual behavior among college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Neighbors, C., Rodriguez, L. M., Rinker, D. V., Gonzales, R. G., Agana, M., Tackett, J. L., et al. (2015). Efficacy of personalized normative feedback as a brief intervention for college student gambling: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(3), 500–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Petry, N. M., Ginley, M. K., & Rash, C. J. (2017). A systematic review of treatments for problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000290.
- Whelan, J. P., Steenbergh, T. A., & Meyers, A. W. (2007). Problem and pathological gambling. Boston: Hogrefe Publishing.Google Scholar