Cited by 139Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Psychological treatment dropout among pathological gamblers

Open access
Melville, Katherine M., Casey, Leanne M., Kavanagh, David J.·2007·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Premature dropout from treatments for pathological gambling is potentially of significant importance, if it occurs before substantial progress has been made in addressing the problem. A systematic review of current research on dropout from psychological treatments for pathological gambling identified 12 studies from five countries. Dropout ranged from 14% to 50%, with a median of dropout 26%. Overall, 31% of the participants dropped out of treatment. Few studies distinguish between dropouts at different stages of participation. The evidence on specific variables that predict dropout is limited or inconsistent, and is characterised by a lack of a coherent, gambling-specific model and by methodological problems. Two studies that attempted to apply motivational and compliance-enhancing techniques were found. Both showed promising effects on reduction of dropout and improvement of short-term impact of treatment, but inconsistent results on longer-term outcomes were obtained. The review highlighted a need for more rigorous investigation of the extent of dropout and of variables associated with dropout from pathological gambling treatment programs. Further research on interventions to enhance retention and reduce dropout from psychological treatment is also required.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.02.004

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Melville et al. review found treatment dropout was not associated with gender, ethnicity, education, income, relationship status, money invested in gambling, gambling severity, type of gambling, motivation to stop gambling, gambling urges, self-efficacy, comorbid depression, social problem-solving skills, prior treatment experience, satisfaction with treatment and treatment motivation.

    “In contrast, treatment dropout was not associated with gender, ethnicity, education, income, relationship status, money invested in gambling, gambling severity, type of gambling, motivation to stop gambling, gambling urges, self-efficacy, comorbid depression, social problem-solving skills, prior treatment experience, satisfaction with treatment and treatment motivation.”

    From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Melville et al., 2007

    The All Dropouts vs. Completers section (page unavailable) reports no significant differences for money spent on gambling, gambling urges, and self-efficacy. But the Pre-treatment dropouts vs. continuers section reports that higher spending predicted dropout before treatment began. The copy does not establish the claimed lack of association for many other listed factors, including ethnicity, income, and comorbid depression. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Melville et al. (2007) identified no significant association between dropout and gender, marital status, pre-treatment gambling symptom severity and depression.

    “Melville et al. (2007) identified no significant association between dropout and gender, marital status, pre-treatment gambling symptom severity and depression.”

    From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Melville et al. (2007)

    The ‘All Dropouts vs. Completers’ section reports no significant differences in gambling spending or urge, which lends limited support to the gambling-related part of the claim. The passages found do not report dropout associations for gender, marital status, depression, or a measure explicitly identified as pre-treatment symptom severity. Moreover, ‘Pre-treatment dropouts vs. continuers’ reports that higher gambling spending significantly predicted dropout at that stage; the null finding should not be generalized across dropout stages. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • To date, the only available systematic review of predictors of treatment outcomes from psychological treatment for disordered gambling has reviewed predictors of dropout (Melville et al., 2007).

    “To date, the only available systematic review of predictors of treatment outcomes from psychological treatment for disordered gambling has reviewed predictors of dropout (Melville et al., 2007).”

    From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Melville et al., 2007

    The indexed text describes Melville et al. (2007) as a systematic review of dropout from psychological treatment for pathological gambling and says it examined variables associated with dropout (Abstract; References). It does not establish that this was the only available systematic review of treatment-outcome predictors. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Melville, Casey, and Kavanagh (2007) conducted a systematic review examining predictors of dropout from psychological treatment for disordered gambling.

    “Melville, Casey, and Kavanagh (2007) conducted a systematic review examining predictors of dropout from psychological treatment for disordered gambling.”
  • The focus of Melville et al. review was specifically on dropout, rather than broader outcomes of treatment response or success.

    “Moreover, the focus of this review was specifically on the factors associated with dropout from psychological treatments for disordered gambling, rather than those associated with the broader outcomes of treatment response or success.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Robson, 2002, Gambling decisions: An early intervention program for problem gamblers, Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 235, 10.1023/a:1016888705033 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melville, K. M., Casey, L. M., & Kavanagh, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Melville, Katherine M.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-12
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
944-958
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151189764
Cited by
139
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
gambling addiction, treatment discontinuation, psychological intervention, treatment retention, predictors of dropout, motivation enhancement, medication adherence
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior Therapy, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Gambling, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Male, Models, Psychological, Patient Dropouts, Probability, Psychotherapy, Research, Research Design, Treatment Outcome

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