Cited by 43Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

A meta-analysis of brief personalized feedback interventions for problematic gambling

Peter, Samuel C., Brett, Emma I., Suda, Matthew T., Leavens, Eleanor L. S., Miller, Mary Beth, Leffingwell, Thad R., Whelan, James P., Meyers, Andrew W.·2019·Journal of Gambling Studies

Abstract

Personal Feedback Interventions (PFIs) have been widely used to reduce the amount of time and money individuals spend on gambling. A central component of these interventions is personalized information about an individual's gambling behavior, often in comparison to others' gambling. The purpose of the present review and meta-analysis was to evaluate these interventions in terms of content, mode of delivery, target sample, and efficacy. Sixteen interventions from 11 studies were reviewed. We found a small, statistically significant effect in favor of PFIs versus control (d = 0.20, 95% CI 0.12, 0.27). Six moderators of intervention efficacy were explored. These interventions appeared to be most efficacious when used in populations of greater gambling severity, when individuals were provided with gambling-related educational information, and when used in conjunction with motivational interviewing. Factors associated with reduced efficacy include in-person delivery of feedback without motivational-interviewing and informing participants of their score on a psychological measure of gambling severity. Efficacy did not vary as a function of college or community samples. PFIs are a low cost, easily disseminated intervention that can be used as a harm-reduction strategy. However, more substantial effects may be attained if used as part of a larger course of therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10899-018-09818-9

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peter, S. C., Brett, E. I., Suda, M. T., Leavens, E. L. S., Miller, M. B., Leffingwell, T. R., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
  • University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Peter, Samuel C.
Venue
Journal of Gambling Studies
Published
2019-01-04
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
447-464
ISSN
  • 1050-5350 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3602
OpenAlex
W2908331449
Cited by
43
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Gambling Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
personalized feedback intervention, problem gambling, gambling harm reduction, motivational interviewing, gambling severity, gambling education, intervention delivery mode, university students, community sample, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Biofeedback, Psychology, Female, Gambling, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Patient Compliance, Universities, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Motivational Interviewing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review