Cargando…
Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Considerable variation of outcome variables used to measure recovery in the gambling treatment literature has precluded effective cross‐study evaluations and hindered the development of best‐practice treatment methodologies. The aim of this systematic review was to describe curr...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5836978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28891116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.13968 |
_version_ | 1783304044955041792 |
---|---|
author | Pickering, Dylan Keen, Brittany Entwistle, Gavin Blaszczynski, Alex |
author_facet | Pickering, Dylan Keen, Brittany Entwistle, Gavin Blaszczynski, Alex |
author_sort | Pickering, Dylan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Considerable variation of outcome variables used to measure recovery in the gambling treatment literature has precluded effective cross‐study evaluations and hindered the development of best‐practice treatment methodologies. The aim of this systematic review was to describe current diffuse concepts of recovery in the gambling field by mapping the range of outcomes and measurement strategies used to evaluate treatments, and to identify more commonly accepted indices of recovery. METHODS: A systematic search of six academic databases for studies evaluating treatments (psychological and pharmacological) for gambling disorders with a minimum 6‐month follow‐up. Data from eligible studies were tabulated and analysis conducted using a narrative approach. Guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) were adhered to. RESULTS: Thirty‐four studies were reviewed systematically (RCTs = 17, comparative designs = 17). Sixty‐three different outcome measures were identified: 25 (39.7%) assessed gambling‐specific constructs, 36 (57.1%) assessed non‐gambling specific constructs, and two instruments were used across both categories (3.2%). Self‐report instruments ranged from psychometrically validated to ad‐hoc author‐designed questionnaires. Units of measurement were inconsistent, particularly in the assessment of gambling behaviour. All studies assessed indices of gambling behaviour and/or symptoms of gambling disorder. Almost all studies (n = 30; 88.2%) included secondary measures relating to psychiatric comorbidities, psychological processes linked to treatment approach, or global functioning and wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: In research on gambling disorders, the incorporation of broader outcome domains that extend beyond disorder‐specific symptoms and behaviours suggests a multi‐dimensional conceptualization of recovery. Development of a single comprehensive scale to measure all aspects of gambling recovery could help to facilitate uniform reporting practices across the field. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5836978 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58369782018-03-12 Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review Pickering, Dylan Keen, Brittany Entwistle, Gavin Blaszczynski, Alex Addiction Review BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Considerable variation of outcome variables used to measure recovery in the gambling treatment literature has precluded effective cross‐study evaluations and hindered the development of best‐practice treatment methodologies. The aim of this systematic review was to describe current diffuse concepts of recovery in the gambling field by mapping the range of outcomes and measurement strategies used to evaluate treatments, and to identify more commonly accepted indices of recovery. METHODS: A systematic search of six academic databases for studies evaluating treatments (psychological and pharmacological) for gambling disorders with a minimum 6‐month follow‐up. Data from eligible studies were tabulated and analysis conducted using a narrative approach. Guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) were adhered to. RESULTS: Thirty‐four studies were reviewed systematically (RCTs = 17, comparative designs = 17). Sixty‐three different outcome measures were identified: 25 (39.7%) assessed gambling‐specific constructs, 36 (57.1%) assessed non‐gambling specific constructs, and two instruments were used across both categories (3.2%). Self‐report instruments ranged from psychometrically validated to ad‐hoc author‐designed questionnaires. Units of measurement were inconsistent, particularly in the assessment of gambling behaviour. All studies assessed indices of gambling behaviour and/or symptoms of gambling disorder. Almost all studies (n = 30; 88.2%) included secondary measures relating to psychiatric comorbidities, psychological processes linked to treatment approach, or global functioning and wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: In research on gambling disorders, the incorporation of broader outcome domains that extend beyond disorder‐specific symptoms and behaviours suggests a multi‐dimensional conceptualization of recovery. Development of a single comprehensive scale to measure all aspects of gambling recovery could help to facilitate uniform reporting practices across the field. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-09-11 2018-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5836978/ /pubmed/28891116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.13968 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Review Pickering, Dylan Keen, Brittany Entwistle, Gavin Blaszczynski, Alex Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review |
title | Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review |
title_full | Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review |
title_short | Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review |
title_sort | measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5836978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28891116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.13968 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pickeringdylan measuringtreatmentoutcomesingamblingdisordersasystematicreview AT keenbrittany measuringtreatmentoutcomesingamblingdisordersasystematicreview AT entwistlegavin measuringtreatmentoutcomesingamblingdisordersasystematicreview AT blaszczynskialex measuringtreatmentoutcomesingamblingdisordersasystematicreview |