Cited by 241Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders

Prevalence, Assessment, and Treatment of Pathological Gambling: A Review

Petry, Nancy M., Armentano, Christopher·1999·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

Objective Although pathological gambling is an increasing problem, many mental health providers are unfamiliar with its diagnosis and treatment. To improve recognition and treatment of pathological gambling, the authors reviewed the literature on its prevalence, assessment, and treatment. Methods Entries in PsycLIT and MEDLINE were examined for the years 1984 to 1998. Results and discussion The prevalence of pathological gambling seems to be increasing with the spread of legalized gambling; casinos are now operating in 27 states. Point and lifetime prevalence rates of pathological gambling are reported to be as high as 1.4 percent and 5.1 percent, respectively. The most commonly used assessment instrument is the DSM-based, 20-item South Oaks Gambling Screen. There is no standard treatment for pathological gambling. Gamblers Anonymous (GA) is the most popular intervention, and about 1,000 chapters exist in the U.S. Studies suggest that only 8 percent of GA attendees achieve a year of abstinence. Combining professional therapy and GA participation may improve retention and abstinence. Marital and family treatments, including participation in Gam-Anon, the spousal component of GA, have not been sufficiently evaluated. The few studies of cognitive-behavioral treatments suggest that this approach, which may include cognitive restructuring, problem solving, social skills training, and relapse prevention, is promising. Carbamazepine, naltrexone, clomipramine, fluvoxamine, and lithiu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/ps.50.8.1021

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 241

Authors
Petry, N. M., & Armentano, C.
Affiliations
University of Connecticut (US)
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
1999-08
Volume
50
Issue
8
Pages
1021-1027
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2156562063
Cited by
241
References
61
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 37
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Connecticut
  • National Institutes of Health (5p50aa003510-27)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (P50- AA03510)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R29-DA-12056, R29DA012056)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Keywords
gambling addiction, prevalence, South Oaks Gambling Screen, Gamblers Anonymous, cognitive behavioral therapy, pharmacotherapy, carbamazepine, naltrexone, abstinence, motivational interviewing, self-help books, treatment manual
MeSH terms
Gambling, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Manuals as Topic, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Self-Help Groups, United States, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Prevalence

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