A randomized controlled trial on a self-guided Internet-based intervention for gambling problems
Abstract The majority of individuals with problematic and pathological gambling remain untreated, and treatment barriers are high. Internet-based interventions can help to address existing barriers, and first studies suggest their potential for this target group. Within a randomized controlled trial...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/27fd527fc1b046c5b15af1c2511f21f4 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract The majority of individuals with problematic and pathological gambling remain untreated, and treatment barriers are high. Internet-based interventions can help to address existing barriers, and first studies suggest their potential for this target group. Within a randomized controlled trial (N = 150) with two assessment times (baseline and post-intervention), we aimed to investigate the feasibility, acceptance, and effectiveness of a self-guided Internet-based intervention targeted at gambling problems. We expected a significant reduction in gambling symptoms (primary outcome) and depressive symptoms as well gambling-specific dysfunctional thoughts (secondary outcomes) in the intervention group (IG) compared to a wait-list control group with access to treatment-as-usual (control group, CG) after the intervention period of 8 weeks. Results of the complete cases, per protocol, intention-to-treat (ITT), and frequent user analyses showed significant improvements in both groups for primary and secondary outcomes but no significant between-group differences (ITT primary outcome, F(1,147) = .11, p = .739, ηp2 < .001). Moderation analyses indicated that individuals in the IG with higher gambling and depressive symptoms, older age, and comorbid anxiety symptoms showed significant improvement relative to the CG. The intervention was positively evaluated (e.g., 96.5% rated the program as useful). Possible reasons for the nonsignificant between-group differences are discussed. Future studies should include follow-up assessments and larger samples to address limitations of the present study. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03372226), http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03372226 , date of registration (13/12/2017). |
|---|