Behaviour Change Strategies Endorsed by Gamblers Subtyped by Psychological Distress, Risky Alcohol Use, and Impulsivity
Problem gambling is often accompanied by co-morbid psychiatric disorders and maladaptive personality traits. Subtyping gamblers based on these pervasive comorbidities has been attempted so as to aid understanding of the aetiology of problem gambling and inform treatment options. However, there has been less focus on subtyping gamblers with (past or current) or without a history of problem gambling, or on providing more specific treatment or self-help recommendations. The current study sought to subtype current-, past-, and non-problem gamblers using three common comorbidities; psychological distress, risky alcohol use, and impulsivity. Participants’ endorsement of helpful behaviour change strategies was also examined by subtype membership. A total of 385 participants were recruited who had a current gambling problem (n = 128; 33%), a past gambling problem (n = 131, 34%) or never had a gambling problem (n = 126, 33%). Hierarchical cluster analysis identified distinct subtypes of current (i.e., low comorbidity, high psychological distress, risky alcohol use and high comorbidity), past (i.e., low comorbidity, high psychological distress and high comorbidity) and non-problem gamblers (i.e., low comorbidity, high psychological distress, risky alcohol use and moderate impulsivity). The most helpful change strategies for current and past gamblers were similar across subtypes (i.e., accept that gambling needs to change, remind yourself of the negative consequences). Non-problem gamblers reported the most helpful strategy as setting financial limits. This study indicated that treatment of psychological distress, risky alcohol use or impulsivity may be important for all gamblers regardless of their level of risk.
KeywordsBehaviour change Gambling Subgroups Treatment Self-help Comorbidity Prevention
SNR, DCH, DIL designed the study and wrote the protocol. BK conducted the data analysis. BK wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.
Funding for this study was provided by Gambling Research Australia (GRA) (Grant No. CD/13/160721). GRA had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. Funding for the preparation of this paper was from the Faculty of Medical Health Sciences, University of Auckland (3714127). University of Auckland had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Commission, Productivity. (2010). Gambling. Canberra: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
- Dawson, D. A., Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Zhou, Y. (2005). Effectiveness of the derived alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT-C) in screening for alcohol use disorders and risk drinking in the US general population. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(5), 844–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dowling, N., Merkouris, S., Manning, V., Oakes, J., Greenwood, C., Rodda, S., et al. (2017). Determining cut-off values for the problem gambling severity index in treatment-seeking gamblers. Paper presented at the National Association of Gambling Studies, Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Dowling, N. A., Cowlishaw, S., Jackson, A. C., Merkouris, S. S., Francis, K. L., & Christensen, D. R. (2015). Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(6), 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- el-Guebaly, N., Casey, D. M., Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Schopflocher, D. P., Smith, G. J., et al. (2015). The leisure, lifestyle, & lifecycle project (LLLP): A longitudinal study of gambling in Alberta. Final Report for the Alberta Gambling Research Institute. Alberta Gambling Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J. A., & Wynne, H. J. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: User manual. Toronto, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Hing, N., Nuske, E., & Gainsbury, S. (2011). Gamblers at-risk and their help-seeking behaviour. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australlia.Google Scholar
- Lubman, D., Rodda, S., Hing, N., Cheetham, A., Cartmill, T., Nuske, E., et al. (2015). Gambler self-help strategies: A comprehensive assessment of self-help strategies and actions. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
- Prochaska, J. J., Sung, H. Y., Max, W., Shi, Y., & Ong, M. (2012). Validity study of the K6 scale as a measure of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and utilization. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 21(2), 88–97.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Rodda, S. N., Bagot, K., Cheetham, A., Hodgins, D. C., Hing, N., & Lubman, D. I. (2018a). Types of change strategies for limiting or reducing gambling behaviours and their perceived helpfulness: A factor analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 32(6), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Vasconcelos, A. G., Malloy-Diniz, L., & Correa, H. (2012). Systematic review of psychometric proprieties of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11). Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(2), 61–74.Google Scholar