Cargando…

Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the light of growing traditional and novel forms of gambling, the treatment of disordered gambling is gaining increasing importance and practical relevance. Most studies have examined face-to-face treatments. Although trials implementing self-guided treatments have recently b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goslar, Martina, Leibetseder, Max, Muench, Hannah M., Hofmann, Stefan G., Laireiter, Anton-Rupert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Akadémiai Kiadó 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28662618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.034
_version_ 1783251761325146112
author Goslar, Martina
Leibetseder, Max
Muench, Hannah M.
Hofmann, Stefan G.
Laireiter, Anton-Rupert
author_facet Goslar, Martina
Leibetseder, Max
Muench, Hannah M.
Hofmann, Stefan G.
Laireiter, Anton-Rupert
author_sort Goslar, Martina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the light of growing traditional and novel forms of gambling, the treatment of disordered gambling is gaining increasing importance and practical relevance. Most studies have examined face-to-face treatments. Although trials implementing self-guided treatments have recently been conducted, these options have not yet been systematically examined. The primary objective of this meta-analysis, therefore, was to analyze the efficacy of all types of psychological face-to-face and self-guided treatments. METHODS: A multilevel literature search yielded 27 randomized controlled studies totaling 3,879 participants to provide a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the short- and long-term efficacies of face-to-face and self-guided treatments for disordered gambling. RESULTS: As expected, the results revealed significantly higher effect sizes for face-to-face treatments (16 studies with Hedges’s g ranging from 0.67 to 1.15) as compared with self-guided treatments (11 studies with Hedges’s g ranging from 0.12 to 0.30) regarding the reduction of problematic gambling behavior. The intensity of treatment moderated the therapy effect, particularly for self-guided treatments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis favor face-to-face treatments over self-guided treatments for the reduction of disordered gambling. Although the findings broaden the scope of knowledge about psychological treatment modalities for disordered gambling, further research is needed to identify the reasons for these differences with the goal to optimize the treatment for this disabling condition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5520130
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55201302017-08-02 Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis Goslar, Martina Leibetseder, Max Muench, Hannah M. Hofmann, Stefan G. Laireiter, Anton-Rupert J Behav Addict Review Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the light of growing traditional and novel forms of gambling, the treatment of disordered gambling is gaining increasing importance and practical relevance. Most studies have examined face-to-face treatments. Although trials implementing self-guided treatments have recently been conducted, these options have not yet been systematically examined. The primary objective of this meta-analysis, therefore, was to analyze the efficacy of all types of psychological face-to-face and self-guided treatments. METHODS: A multilevel literature search yielded 27 randomized controlled studies totaling 3,879 participants to provide a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the short- and long-term efficacies of face-to-face and self-guided treatments for disordered gambling. RESULTS: As expected, the results revealed significantly higher effect sizes for face-to-face treatments (16 studies with Hedges’s g ranging from 0.67 to 1.15) as compared with self-guided treatments (11 studies with Hedges’s g ranging from 0.12 to 0.30) regarding the reduction of problematic gambling behavior. The intensity of treatment moderated the therapy effect, particularly for self-guided treatments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis favor face-to-face treatments over self-guided treatments for the reduction of disordered gambling. Although the findings broaden the scope of knowledge about psychological treatment modalities for disordered gambling, further research is needed to identify the reasons for these differences with the goal to optimize the treatment for this disabling condition. Akadémiai Kiadó 2017-06-29 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5520130/ /pubmed/28662618 http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.034 Text en © 2017 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Goslar, Martina
Leibetseder, Max
Muench, Hannah M.
Hofmann, Stefan G.
Laireiter, Anton-Rupert
Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis
title Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis
title_full Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis
title_short Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis
title_sort efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: a meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28662618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.034
work_keys_str_mv AT goslarmartina efficacyoffacetofaceversusselfguidedtreatmentsfordisorderedgamblingametaanalysis
AT leibetsedermax efficacyoffacetofaceversusselfguidedtreatmentsfordisorderedgamblingametaanalysis
AT muenchhannahm efficacyoffacetofaceversusselfguidedtreatmentsfordisorderedgamblingametaanalysis
AT hofmannstefang efficacyoffacetofaceversusselfguidedtreatmentsfordisorderedgamblingametaanalysis
AT laireiterantonrupert efficacyoffacetofaceversusselfguidedtreatmentsfordisorderedgamblingametaanalysis