Online Self-Directed Interventions for Gambling Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Self-directed treatments for gambling disorder have been developed to attract individuals who are reluctant to seek formal treatment. Self-directed treatments provide individuals with information and support to initiate a recovery program without attending formal treatment. In this study, an online version of a previously evaluated telephone-based intervention package is compared to a brief online normative feedback intervention called Check Your Gambling. In a randomized controlled trial design, participants with gambling problems who were not interested in formal treatment (N = 181) were recruited through media announcements. After a baseline telephone assessment, participants were assigned to have access to either the brief Check Your Gambling, or the extended self-management tools intervention. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months post baseline by blinded interviewers. Participant nominated collaterals were contacted to validate self-reported gambling involvement. The follow-up rate at 12 months was 78%. Participants in both conditions showed significant reductions in days of gambling and problem severity but no differences between conditions were found, contrary to the primary hypothesis. Lack of previous treatment for gambling and higher baseline self-efficacy predicted fewer days of gambling in both conditions. Self-efficacy increased over time but did not appear to mediate changes in gambling. Participants who were most engaged in the extended online program showed better outcomes. Those with low engagement showed a slower trajectory of change but equivalent improvements by 12 months. The extended online intervention was not associated with better outcomes than the brief Check Your Gambling intervention. Future research needs to explore the attractiveness, uptake, and effectiveness of online interventions with and without therapist support to understand their potential role in gambling disorder treatment systems.
Trial Registration ISRCTN06220098.
KeywordsClinical trial Brief intervention Gambling disorder Online intervention Normative feedback
This study was funded by Canadian Institute of Health Research (project grant).
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.
- Aiken, M. (1982). A program for balancing the allocation of subjects to treatment in a clinical trial. Computers in Biomedical Research, 15(5), 519–524.Google Scholar
- Campos, M. D., Rosenthal, R. J., Chen, Q., Moghaddam, J., & Fong, T. W. (2015). A self-help manual for problem gamblers: The impact of minimal therapist guidance on outcome. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 14(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9579-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Casey, L. M., Oei, T. P. S., Raylu, N., Horrigan, K., Day, J., Ireland, M., et al. (2017). Internet-based delivery of cognitive behaviour therapy compared to monitoring, feedback and support for problem gambling: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(3), 993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9666-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Gerstein, D. R. M. S., Toce, M., Hoffman, J., Palmer, A., & Johnston, R. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study. Report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Hodgins, D. C., Fick, G. H., Murray, R., & Cunningham, J. A. (2013). Internet-based interventions for disordered gamblers: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of online self-directed cognitive-behavioural motivational therapy. BMC Public Health, 13, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hodgins, D. C., & Makarchuk, K. (2002). Becoming a winner: Defeating problem gambling. Calgary: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
- Hodgins, D. C., & Schluter, M. (2018). The role of treatment in reducing gambling-related harm. In H. Bowden-Jones, C. Dickson, C. Dunand, & O. Simon (Eds.), Problem gambling: Harm-reduction as a public health approach. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Labrie, R. A., Peller, A. J., Laplante, D. A., Bernhard, B., Harper, A., Schrier, T., et al. (2012). A brief self-help toolkit intervention for gambling problems: A randomized multisite trial. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01157.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Luquiens, A., Tanguy, M. L., Lagadec, M., Benyamina, A., Aubin, H. J., & Reynaud, M. (2016). The efficacy of three modalities of Internet-based psychotherapy for non-treatment-seeking online problem gamblers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(2), e36. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Riper, H., Blankers, M., Hadiwijaya, H., Cunningham, J., Clarke, S., Wiers, R., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of guided and unguided low-intensity internet interventions for adult alcohol misuse: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Swan, J. L., & Hodgins, D. C. (2015). Brief interventions for disordered gambling. Canadian Journal of Addiction, 6(2), 29–36.Google Scholar