Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Hodgins, D. C., Currie, S. R., & el-Geubaly, N. (2001). Motivational enhancement for self-help treatments for problem gambling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 50-57. 
Hodgins, D. C., Currie, S. R., el-Geubaly, N., & Peden, N. (2004). Brief motivational treatment for problem gambling: A 24-month follow-up. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 293-296. Study 2Hodgins, D. C., Ching, L. E., & McEwen, J. (2009). Strength of commitment language in motivational interviewing and gambling outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(1), 122-130.
Hodgins, D. C., Currie, S. R., Currie, G., & Fick, G. H. (2009). Randomized trial of brief motivational treatments for pathological gamblers: More is not necessarily better. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(5), 950-960. Study 3Diskin, K. M., & Hodgins, D. C. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of a single session motivational intervention for concerned gamblers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(5), 382-388.
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Number of days spent gambling in past month |
|
Description of Measures
|
Timeline Followback interviews were used at each follow-up assessment to collect information about participants' gambling history in the past month, including types of gambling engaged in, the number of days spent gambling, and the amount of money won or lost on each occasion. In the first study, interviews were conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention. In a second study, interviews were conducted at baseline and at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 52 weeks postintervention, and collaterals nominated by participants were interviewed at the 12-week follow-up. In a third study, interviews were conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention, and collaterals nominated by participants were interviewed at the 6-month follow-up.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In one study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook after a motivational interview, an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook only, or a 1-month wait-list control group. At 1-month follow-up, the interview-plus-workbook group reported gambling significantly fewer days than the wait-list control group (p < .05), but the workbook-only group and wait-list control group did not differ significantly in the number of days spent gambling.
In a second study, participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook after a motivational interview; an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook after a motivational interview, plus six booster sessions; an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook only; or a 1-month wait-list control group. At 6-week follow-up, the group that received the interview, workbook, and booster sessions gambled significantly fewer days, on average, than the workbook-only and wait-list control groups (p < .01), and the same was true at 3-month follow-up (p < .001). At 6- and 9-month follow-ups, the interview-plus-workbook group reported significantly fewer gambling days compared with the wait-list control group (p < .0005 and p < .005, respectively), as did the booster session group (p < .0005 and p < .01, respectively). There were no significant differences across the groups at the 12-month follow-up.
In a third study, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook after a motivational interview, or a comparison group that received a semistructured interview. The interview-plus-workbook group spent significantly fewer days gambling relative to the comparison group during all follow-up periods (all p values < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Dollars lost to gambling in past month |
|
Description of Measures
|
Timeline Followback interviews were used at each follow-up assessment to collect information about participants' gambling history in the past 2 months, including types of gambling engaged in, the number of days spent gambling, and the amount of money won or lost on each occasion. In one study, interviews were conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention. In another study, interviews were conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention, and collaterals nominated by the participants were interviewed at 6-month follow-up.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In one study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook after a motivational interview, an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook only, or a 1-month wait-list control group. At 1-month follow-up, the interview-plus-workbook group lost significantly fewer dollars to gambling in the past month than the wait-list control group (p < .03), whereas the workbook-only group did not differ significantly from the wait-list control group.
In another study, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook after a motivational interview and a comparison group that received a semistructured interview. A significant main effect was found for the intervention, with the interview-plus-workbook group reporting fewer dollars lost to gambling in the past month during all follow-up periods than the comparison group (all p values < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.8
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Dollars spent per gambling day |
|
Description of Measures
|
Timeline Followback interviews were used at each follow-up assessment to collect information about participants' gambling history in the past 2 months, including types of gambling engaged in, the number of days spent gambling, and the amount of money won or lost on each occasion. Interviews were conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an intervention group that received the BSGT workbook after a motivational interview, an intervention group that received the workbook only, or a 1-month wait-list control group. At 1-month follow-up, the interview-plus-workbook group spent significantly fewer dollars per gambling day than the wait-list control group (p < .04), while the workbook-only group did not differ significantly from the wait-list control group.
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.5
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
|
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
Study 1
|
18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
55+ (Older adult)
|
52% Female
48% Male
|
100% Non-U.S. population
|
|
Study 2
|
18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
55+ (Older adult)
|
55.4% Female
44.6% Male
|
100% Non-U.S. population
|
|
Study 3
|
18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
55+ (Older adult)
|
57% Male
43% Female
|
100% Non-U.S. population
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
|
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
1: Number of days spent gambling in past month
|
2.2
|
2.7
|
3.0
|
3.1
|
2.8
|
3.7
|
2.9
|
|
2: Dollars lost to gambling in past month
|
2.2
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
2.9
|
2.6
|
3.7
|
2.8
|
|
3: Dollars spent per gambling day
|
2.2
|
2.7
|
2.1
|
2.5
|
2.0
|
3.7
|
2.5
|
Study Strengths The Timeline Followback interview has been shown to be a reliable and valid assessment, and collateral reports showed overall good agreement. Other measurement instruments used were appropriate for the primary outcome variables and have been validated in other studies. The self-help workbook was manualized with clear session content. No differences were found between intervention groups in the percentages of subjects who read the workbook. The motivational interviews were conducted by just two people using a protocol. In one study, the researchers provided intensive training to the therapists and used a checklist to monitor their motivational interviews. Follow-up rates were very good. Random assignment was used in all studies. Group differences were examined, and it was found that there were no baseline differences. Gender and severity of gambling problems were considered in the analyses. The data analysis methods used were appropriate to answer the study questions.
Study Weaknesses Only single items were used in the outcome assessments, which used self-report data. The time of intervention varied, with only 56% of participants completing the workbook by 1-month follow-up, and 80% completing the workbook by 3-month follow-up. Participants were not tested on workbook content. No explanation was given for the wide range in the duration of the motivational interview (between 20 and 45 minutes). In one study, the research assistant conducting the baseline and follow-up survey was aware of the participants' treatment condition.
|
|
Readiness for Dissemination
Materials Reviewed
The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation
point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention
and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.
Hodgins, D. (2010) Therapist intervention manual: Alberta version. Alberta, Canada: Author.
Hodgins, D. C., & Makarchuk, K. (2009). Becoming a winner: Defeating problem gambling. A self-help manual for problem gamblers. Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary Addiction Centre, Addictive Behaviours Laboratory.
Quality assurance tools:
- 12-Week Follow-Up Interview
- 52-Week Follow-Up Interview
- BGST Therapist Adherence Checklist for Interview Evaluation
- Initial Interview Form
- Online gambling measures and protocol, http://addiction.ucalgary.ca/researchers/instruments
Sample recruitment advertisements
Training materials:
- Brief Self-directed Gambling Treatment Training [PowerPoint slides]
- Brief Self-directed Gambling Treatment Training [DVD]
Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination
using three criteria:
- Availability of implementation materials
- Availability of training and support resources
- Availability of quality assurance procedures
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.
Implementation
Materials
|
Training and Support
Resources
|
Quality Assurance
Procedures
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
3.0
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
3.2
|
Dissemination Strengths The intervention's high-quality self-help manual, which includes many checklists, worksheets, and self-monitoring tools, is an excellent resource for intervention participants. The well-developed and comprehensive training program makes use of role-play and trainer feedback to build proficiency in intervention delivery. Training videos support the presentation through illustration of key concepts. The developer provides consultation and technical assistance services to new implementation sites. A therapist adherence checklist is provided to help monitor practitioner use of motivational interviewing, the basis of the intervention. Additional client outcome monitoring forms are provided to support quality assurance.
Dissemination Weaknesses The self-help manual includes resources that are specific to Canada, requiring some tailoring of this document for use elsewhere. The therapist manual and other materials include limited guidance to the practitioner to accompany concepts taught in training. The quality assurance tools may not be as well suited for use outside of a research setting, and limited guidance is provided on using these tools and data derived from them to improve program delivery.
|
|
