Problem Gambling Family Impacts: Development of the Problem Gambling Family Impact Scale

Although family members of problem gamblers frequently present to treatment services, problem gambling family impacts are under-researched. The most commonly endorsed items on a new measure of gambling-related family impacts [Problem Gambling Family Impact Measure (PG-FIM: Problem Gambler version)] by 212 treatment-seeking problem gamblers included trust (62.5 %), anger (61.8 %), depression or sadness (58.7 %), anxiety (57.7 %), distress due to gambling-related absences (56.1 %), reduced quality time (52.4 %), and communication breakdowns (52.4 %). The PG-FIM (Problem Gambler version) was comprised of three factors: (1) financial impacts, (2) increased responsibility impacts, and (3) psychosocial impacts with good psychometric properties. Younger, more impulsive, non-electronic gaming machine (EGM) gamblers who had more severe gambling problems reported more financial impacts; non-EGM gamblers with poorer general health reported more increased responsibility impacts; and more impulsive non-EGM gamblers with more psychological distress and higher gambling severity reported more psychosocial impacts. The findings have implications for the development of interventions for the family members of problem gamblers.

GAMBLINGLESS: FOR LIFE study protocol: a pragmatic randomised trial of an online cognitive-behavioural programme for disordered gambling

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of disordered gambling worldwide has been estimated at 2.3%. Only a small minority of disordered gamblers seek specialist face-to-face treatment, and so a need for alternative treatment delivery models that capitalise on advances in communication technology, and use self-directed activity that can complement existing services has been identified. As such, the primary aim of this study is to evaluate an online self-directed cognitive-behavioural programme for disordered gambling (GamblingLess: For Life).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be a 2-arm, parallel group, pragmatic randomised trial. Participants will be randomly allocated to a pure self-directed (PSD) or guided self-directed (GSD) intervention. Participants in both groups will be asked to work through the 4 modules of the GamblingLess programme over 8 weeks. Participants in the GSD intervention will also receive weekly emails of guidance and support from a gambling counsellor. A total of 200 participants will be recruited. Participants will be eligible if they reside in Australia, are aged 18 years and over, have access to the internet, have adequate knowledge of the English language, are seeking help for their own gambling problems and are willing to take part in the intervention and associated assessments. Assessments will be conducted at preintervention, and at 2, 3 and 12 months from preintervention. The primary outcome is gambling severity, assessed using the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes include gambling frequency, gambling expenditure, psychological distress, quality of life and additional help-seeking. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted with a subsample of participants and the Guides (counsellors).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Deakin University Human Research and Eastern Health Human Research Ethics Committees. Findings will be disseminated via report, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615000864527; results.

Problem gambling and family violence: prevalence and patterns in treatment-seekers

The primary aim of this study was to explore the prevalence and patterns of family violence in treatment-seeking problem gamblers. Secondary aims were to identify the prevalence of problem gambling in a family violence victimisation treatment sample and to explore the relationship between problem gambling and family violence in other treatment-seeking samples. Clients from 15 Australian treatment services were systematically screened for problem gambling using the Brief Bio-Social Gambling Screen and for family violence using single victimisation and perpetration items adapted from the Hurt-Insulted-Threatened-Screamed (HITS): gambling services (n=463), family violence services (n=95), alcohol and drug services (n=47), mental health services (n=51), and financial counselling services (n=48). The prevalence of family violence in the gambling sample was 33.9% (11.0% victimisation only, 6.9% perpetration only, and 16.0% both victimisation and perpetration). Female gamblers were significantly more likely to report victimisation only (16.5% cf. 7.8%) and both victimisation and perpetration (21.2% cf. 13.0%) than male gamblers. There were no other demographic differences in family violence prevalence estimates. Gamblers most commonly endorsed their parents as both the perpetrators and victims of family violence, followed by current and former partners. The prevalence of problem gambling in the family violence sample was 2.2%. The alcohol and drug (84.0%) and mental health (61.6%) samples reported significantly higher rates of any family violence than the gambling sample, while the financial counselling sample (10.6%) reported significantly higher rates of problem gambling than the family violence sample. The findings of this study support substantial comorbidity between problem gambling and family violence, although this may be accounted for by a high comorbidity with alcohol and drug use problems and other psychiatric disorders. They highlight the need for routine screening, assessment and management of problem gambling and family violence in a range of services.