Validation of a Spanish Adaptation of the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS) in Persons with Recent History of Gambling

Gambling is becoming increasingly frequent and problematic, especially due to the explosion of online alternatives. Evaluating the severity of gambling symptomatology is therefore more important than ever. However, innovations in the gambling field have generally focused on its treatment rather than its evaluation. The Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS) is a well-established measure of gambling-related symptomatology (e.g., gambling urges, gambling-related thoughts and behaviours, and interpersonal functioning). The aim of this study is to validate a Spanish adaptation of the G-SAS so that individual differences in gambling symptomatology can be assessed by clinicians and researchers. The internal structure of the G-SAS was investigated using an exploratory factor analysis with a sample of 364 individuals from the general population in Spain (mean age = 28.84 years, SD = 11.73; 54% males). A four-factor structure was preferred considering fit indices (Chi-square = 22.62, p = .162, RMSEA = 0.030, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.995) and internal consistency estimates (0.67 ≤ α ≤ 0.89). The factors were labelled gambling-related symptoms, control of gambling urges/thoughts, interference, and arousal. Regarding construct validity, the four factors of the G-SAS were positively and significantly (all p < .001) correlated with measures of problematic gambling severity (0.40 ≤ r ≤ .73), problematic gambling diagnostic (0.40 ≤ r ≤ .67), gambling cognitions (0.48 ≤ r ≤ .57), impulsivity (0.26 ≤ r ≤ .42), anxiety (0.22 ≤ r ≤ .38), and depression (0.16 ≤ r ≤ .42), and negatively with quality of life (-0.24 ≤ r≤-.42). In sum, this study provides Spanish clinicians and researchers with a tool that serves to assess the status of individuals in relation to gambling symptomatology, which can be used to screen for at-risk profiles and evaluate treatment response.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of disordered and problem gambling

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions for disordered and problem gambling have been employed in clinical practice. Despite the availability of several reviews of the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling, few have employed systematic search strategies or compared different categories of pharmacological interventions. Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are therefore essential to provide guidance regarding the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aims of the review were to: (1) examine the efficacy of major categories of pharmacological-only interventions (antidepressants, opioid antagonists, mood stabilisers, atypical antipsychotics) for disordered or problem gambling, relative to placebo control conditions; and (2) examine the efficacy of these major categories relative to each other.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (all years to 11 January 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials evaluating a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of disordered or problem gambling. Eligible control conditions included placebo control groups or comparisons with another category of pharmacological intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures, including systematic extraction of included study characteristics and results and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome was reduction in gambling symptom severity. Our secondary outcomes were reduction in gambling expenditure, gambling frequency, time spent gambling, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment; and responder status. We evaluated treatment effects for continuous and dichotomous outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios (RR), respectively, employing random-effects meta-analyses. A minimum of two independent treatment effects were required for a meta-analysis to be conducted (with only meta-analytic findings reported in this abstract).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies in the review (n = 1193 randomised) that reported outcome data scheduled for end of treatment. Length of treatment ranged from 7 to 96 weeks.  Antidepressants: Six studies (n = 268) evaluated antidepressants, with very low to low certainty evidence suggesting that antidepressants were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.09, n = 225), gambling expenditure (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.06, n = 144), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.23, n = 90), functional impairment (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22, n = 110), and responder status (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.66, n = 268). Opioid antagonists: Four studies (n = 562) evaluated opioid antagonists, with very low to low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.19, n = 259), but no difference between groups in responder status (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, n = 562). Mood stabilisers: Two studies (n = 71) evaluated mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence suggesting that mood stabilisers were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.39, n = 71), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -1.14 to 0.83, n = 71), and anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.30, n = 71). Atypical antipsychotics:Two studies (n = 63) evaluated the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine, with very low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.08, n = 63). Comparative effectiveness: Two studies (n = 62) compared antidepressants with opioid antagonists, with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than opioid antagonists on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) at post-treatment. Two studies (n = 58) compared antidepressants with mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than mood stabilisers on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.56, n = 58) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.70, n = 58) at post-treatment. Tolerability and adverse events: Several common adverse effects were reported by participants receiving antidepressants (e.g. headaches, nausea, diarrhoea/gastrointestinal issues) and opioid antagonists (e.g. nausea, dry mouth, constipation). There was little consistency in the types of adverse effects experienced by participants receiving mood stabilisers (e.g. tiredness, headaches, concentration difficulties) or atypical antipsychotics (e.g. pneumonia, sedation, increased hypomania). Discontinuation of treatment due to these adverse events was highest for opioid antagonists (10% to 32%), followed by antidepressants (4% to 31%), atypical antipsychotics (14%), and mood stabilisers (13%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides preliminary support for the use of opioid antagonists (naltrexone, nalmefene) and atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine) to produce short-term improvements in gambling symptom severity, although a lack of available evidence precludes a conclusion regarding the degree to which these pharmacological agents can improve other gambling or psychological functioning indices. In contrast, the findings are inconclusive with regard to the effects of mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants) in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, and there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants. However, these conclusions are based on very low to low certainty evidence characterised by a small number of included studies, high risk of bias, modest pooled sample sizes, imprecise estimates, moderate between-study heterogeneity, and exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analyses on many outcome measures; to compare efficacy across and within major categories of interventions; to explore dosage effects; or to examine effects beyond post-treatment. These limitations suggest that, despite recommendations related to the administration of opioid antagonists in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, pharmacological interventions should be administered with caution and with careful consideration of patient needs. A larger and more methodologically rigorous evidence base with longer-term evaluation periods is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness and durability of pharmacological treatments for disordered or problem gambling.

Adult Gambling Problems and Histories of Mental Health and Substance Use: Findings from a Prospective Multi-Wave Australian Cohort Study

Little is known about the cumulative effect of adolescent and young adult mental health difficulties and substance use problems on gambling behaviour in adulthood. We use data from one of Australia's longest running studies of social and emotional development to examine the extent to which: (1) mental health symptoms (depressive and anxiety symptoms) and substance use (weekly binge drinking, tobacco, and cannabis use) from adolescence (13-18 years) into young adulthood (19-28 years) predict gambling problems in adulthood (31-32 years); and (2) risk relationships differ by sex. Analyses were based on responses from 1365 adolescent and young adult participants, spanning seven waves of data collection (1998-2014). Persistent adolescent to young adult binge drinking, tobacco use and cannabis use predicted gambling at age 31-32 years (OR = 2.30-3.42). Binge drinking and tobacco use in young adulthood also predicted gambling at age 31-32 years (OR = 2.04-2.54). Prior mental health symptoms were not associated with gambling and no risk relationships differed by sex. Findings suggest that gambling problems in adulthood may be related to the earlier development of other addictive behaviours, and that interventions targeting substance use from adolescence to young adulthood may confer additional gains in preventing later gambling behaviours.

Enhancing the utility of the problem gambling severity index in clinical settings: Identifying refined categories within the problem gambling category

BACKGROUND

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) was intended for use in epidemiological research with gamblers across the continuum of risk. Its utility within clinical settings, where the majority of clients are problem gamblers, has been brought into question.

AIMS

(1) Identify refined categories for the problem gambling category of the PGSI in help-seeking gamblers; (2) Validate these categories using the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS); (3) Explore the relationship of these categories with indices of gambling and help-seeking behaviour.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of help-seeking problem gamblers from the Australian online gambling counselling/support service (Gambling Help Online [GHO]) from October 2012 to December 2015 (n = 5,881) and trial data evaluating an Australian online self-directed program for gambling (GamblingLess; n = 198). Both datasets included the PGSI, gambling frequency and expenditure. The GamblingLess dataset also included the G-SAS and help-seeking behaviour.

RESULTS

A Latent Class Analysis, using GHO data, identified a 2-class solution. Multiple analytical methods identified a cut-off value of ≥ 19 distinguishing this 2-class solution (low problem severity: Median = 16; high problem severity: Median = 23). High problem severity gamblers had increased odds of being categorised in the higher GSAS category, greater gambling expenditure and having sought face-to-face support. The refined categories were not associated with gambling frequency, distance-based or self-directed help-seeking.

CONCLUSION

These findings are consistent with a stepped-care approach, whereby individuals with higher severity may be better suited to more intensive interventions and individuals with lower severity could commence with less intensive interventions and step-up to intensive interventions.

A systematic review evaluating screening instruments for gambling disorder finds lack of adequate evidence

OBJECTIVES

To date, no research has systematically evaluated screening instruments for gambling disorder to assess their accuracy and the quality of the research. This systematic review evaluated screening instruments for gambling disorder to inform decision makers about choices for population-level screening.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

On May 22, 2017 and January 4, 2019, we searched PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Cochrane for studies that evaluated screening instruments for gambling disorder. Studies were included if (1) the screening instrument was in English, (2) the screening instrument was compared to a reference standard semistructured interview based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases diagnoses of gambling disorder, and (3) data were reported on psychometric properties of the instrument.

RESULTS

We identified 31 different screening instruments from 60 studies. Only three instruments from three separate studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review.

CONCLUSION

Few screening instruments for gambling disorder have been validated with sufficient methodological quality to be recommended for use across a large health system.

Spanish validation of the Problem Gambling Severity Index: A confirmatory factor analysis with sports bettors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) is one of the most widely used screening tools for problem gambling (PG). However, to date, no empirically validated adaptation of the instrument to Spanish-speaking countries exists.

METHODS

A sample of 659 sports bettors (M_age = 35.1 years, SD = 10.12, 74.2% males) were recruited through an online research panel. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to confirm its construct validity. The participants were administered the Spanish version of the PGSI, along with the adaptation to Spanish of the DSM-IV PG instrument for convergent validity.

RESULTS

The CFA of the Spanish PGSI showed satisfactory construct validity. The internal consistency (α_ordinal = .97) as well as its convergent validity with the DSM-IV scores (r = .77, p < .001) was good.

CONCLUSION

The Spanish adaptation of the PGSI offers satisfactory validity and reliability properties, and is a good psychometric instrument for exploring the social consequences of PG in Spanish-speaking contexts.

Screening for problem gambling within mental health services: a comparison of the classification accuracy of brief instruments

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite the over-representation of people with gambling problems in mental health populations, there is limited information available to guide the selection of brief screening instruments within mental health services. The primary aim was to compare the classification accuracy of nine brief problem gambling screening instruments (two to five items) with a reference standard among patients accessing mental health services.

DESIGN

The classification accuracy of nine brief screening instruments was compared with multiple cut-off scores on a reference standard.

SETTING

Eight mental health services in Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 837 patients were recruited consecutively between June 2015 and January 2016.

MEASUREMENTS

The brief screening instruments were the Lie/Bet Questionnaire, Brief Problem Gambling Screen (BPGS) (two- to five-item versions), NODS-CLiP, NODS-CLiP2, Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS) and NODS-PERC. The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) was the reference standard.

FINDINGS

The five-item BPGS was the only instrument displaying satisfactory classification accuracy in detecting any level of gambling problem (low-risk, moderate-risk or problem gambling) (sensitivity = 0.803, specificity = 0.982, diagnostic efficiency = 0.943). Several shorter instruments adequately detected both problem and moderate-risk, but not low-risk, gambling: two three-item instruments (NODS-CLiP, three-item BPGS) and two four-item instruments (NODS-PERC, four-item BPGS) (sensitivity = 0.854-0.966, specificity = 0.901-0.954, diagnostic efficiency = 0.908-0.941). The four-item instruments, however, did not provide any considerable advantage over the three-item instruments. Similarly, the very brief (two-item) instruments (Lie/Bet and two-item BPGS) adequately detected problem gambling (sensitivity = 0.811-0.868, specificity = 0.938-0.943, diagnostic efficiency = 0.933-0.934), but not moderate-risk or low-risk gambling.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal brief screening instrument for mental health services wanting to screen for any level of gambling problem is the five-item Brief Problem Gambling Screen (BPGS). Services wanting to employ a shorter instrument or to screen only for more severe gambling problems (moderate-risk/problem gambling) can employ the NODS-CLiP or the three-item BPGS. Services that are only able to accommodate a very brief instrument can employ the Lie/Bet Questionnaire or the two-item BPGS.

Problem Gambling Among Urban and Rural Gamblers in Limpopo Province, South Africa: Associations with Hazardous and Harmful Alcohol Use and Psychological Distress

Little is known about the mental health correlates of problem gambling in low- and-middle-income countries such as South Africa and whether these correlates vary by urbanicity. To address this gap, we examined mental health factors associated with problem gambling among gamblers in Limpopo Province, South Africa disaggregated by rural, peri-urban and urban location. A survey of gambling behaviour and mental health was conducted among 900 gamblers. Overall, 28.3 % were at high risk and 38.1 % were at moderate risk for problem gambling. For the entire sample, hazardous/harmful alcohol use was associated with almost twofold increased chance of being at moderate risk (AOR 1.83; 95 % CI 1.08, 3.11) and almost sevenfold greater odds (AOR 6.93; 95 % CI 4.03-11.93) of being at high risk for problem gambling. Psychological distress was associated with being at high risk for problem gambling only (AOR 1.18; 95 % CI 1.14-1.22). After stratifying by urbanicity, hazardous/harmful alcohol use and psychological distress remained associated with high risk gambling across all locations. We found little knowledge of a free gambling helpline and other gambling services-particularly in less urbanised environments [χ(2) (2), 900 = 40.4; p < 0.001]. These findings highlight the need to increase awareness of free helpline services among gamblers and to ensure gambling services include screening and treatment for common mental disorders.

Investigating Possible Reciprocal Relations Between Depressive and Problem Gambling Symptoms in Emerging Adults

OBJECTIVE

Previous cross-sectional research has shown that depression and problem gambling co-occur. Longitudinal research, however, allows for a better determination of directionality, as behavioural changes in gambling involvement can be more reliably studied over time. Our study assesses symptoms of depression and problem gambling across 4 waves and addresses whether their relation is directional (with one reliably preceding the other), bidirectional, or pathoplastic.

METHOD

As part of the Manitoba Longitudinal Study of Young Adults, prospective data were collected on Canadian young adults' (Wave 1: n = 679, 51.8% female, aged 18 to 20 years) depressive symptoms, involvement in gambling, and risky gambling behaviour. Recruitment and the first cycle of data collection (Wave 1) took place in fall 2007. Three additional waves of data collection then occurred in 12- to 18-month intervals: fall 2008, spring 2010, and spring 2011. The Problem Gambling Severity Index and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form were administered through telephone interview at each wave.

RESULTS

Bivariate growth curves showed that depressive and problem gambling symptoms were positively correlated at Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 4. Neither disorder was found to be a risk factor for the other, and depression and problem gambling were not pathoplastically related (that is, increases in one did not result in increases in the other over time, and vice versa).

CONCLUSIONS

While depression and problem gambling are related, their co-occurrence may be better explained not by depressive- or gambling-related risk, but by the presence of a common underlying factor (such as substance abuse).