CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 258Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcome of psychological treatments of pathological gambling: a review and meta-analysis

Pallesen, Ståle, Mitsem, Morten, Kvale, Gerd, Johnsen, Bjørn‐Helge, Molde, Helge·2005·Addiction
DOI 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01204.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

AIMS: To investigate the short- and long-term effect of psychological treatments of pathological gambling and factors relating to treatment outcome. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study provides a quantitative meta-analytical review of psychotherapeutic treatments of pathological gambling. Studies were identified by computer search in the PsycINFO and Medline databases covering the period from 1966 to 2004, as well as from relevant reference lists. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The target problem was pathological gambling, the treatment was psychological, the study was published in English and outcomes directly pertaining to gambling were employed. Single case studies, studies where elimination of gambling not was the priority and studies with insufficient statistical information were excluded from the present meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 37 outcome studies, published or reported between 1968 and 2004, were identified. Of these 15 were excluded, thus 22 studies were included, involving 1434 subjects. The grand mean age was 40.1 years. The overall proportion of men was 71.5%. MEASUREMENTS: The included studies were coded for outcome measures of pathological gambling. For each condition, means and standard deviations for gambling-related outcome measures, all based upon self-reports or therapist ratings, were compiled at three points in time: baseline, post-treatment and the last follow-up reported. FINDINGS: Effect sizes represent the difference between the mean score in a treatment condition and a control condition or the difference between mean scores at separated points in time for one group, expressed in terms of standard deviation units. At post-treatment the analysis indicated that psychological treatments were more effective than no treatment, yielding an overall effect size of 2.01 (P < 0.01). At follow-up (averaging 17.0 months) the corresponding effect size was 1.59 (P < 0.01). A multiple regression analysis showed that the magnitude of effect sizes at post-treatment were lower in studies including patients with a formal diagnosis of pathological gambling only, compared to studies not employing such inclusion criteria. Effect sizes were also higher in randomized controlled trials compared to not randomized controlled trials, higher in within subjects designs compared to between subjects designs and also positively related to number of therapy sessions. No mediator variables were significantly related to the magnitude of the effect sizes at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Psychological interventions for pathological gamble seem to be yield very favourable short- and long-term outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01204.x

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. National Research Council, 1999, Pathological Gambling: a Critical Review
  2. Oakley‐Browne M. A., 2003, The Cochrane Library
  3. Stinchfield R., 1996, Effectiveness of Six State‐Supported Compulsive Gambling Treatment Programs in Minnesota
  4. 10.1037/0022-006X.65.5.727 · DOI
  5. Walker M. B., 1992, The Psychology of Gambling

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pallesen, S., Mitsem, M., Kvale, G., Johnsen, B., & Molde, H.
Affiliations
University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Pallesen, Ståle
ORCID
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-09-26
Volume
100
Issue
10
Pages
1412-1422
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
DOI
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01204.x
OpenAlex
W2116653876
Cited by
258
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 17
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, psychological intervention, psychotherapy, treatment outcomes, long-term follow-up, effect size, randomized controlled trials, number of treatment sessions, predictors of treatment outcome
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Gambling, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Male, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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