基于互联网的个性化规范反馈在经历问题赌博的个人中的有效性:随机对照试验。

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Gambling Studies Pub Date : 2024-12-31 DOI:10.1007/s10899-024-10364-w
Kengo Yokomitsu, Kazuya Inoue, Eiichi Kamimura, Sachio Matsushita, Ryuhei So
{"title":"基于互联网的个性化规范反馈在经历问题赌博的个人中的有效性:随机对照试验。","authors":"Kengo Yokomitsu, Kazuya Inoue, Eiichi Kamimura, Sachio Matsushita, Ryuhei So","doi":"10.1007/s10899-024-10364-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to examine whether fully automated and Internet-based personalized normative feedback (GAMCHECK) improves problem gambling symptoms and behaviors. We used a randomized parallel-group superiority design to examine whether GAMCHECK would be more effective than an assessment-only (AO) condition at 12-week follow-up. This study was conducted online using questionnaires and the LINE app. Participants were recruited through online surveys. All outcomes were assessed using Internet-based questionnaires. We used a linear mixed model to assess the effects of GAMCHECK on scores for the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS) as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C), number of gambling days, money spent on gambling, and help-seeking behaviors. With data from 274 participants (GAMCHECK: n = 141; AO: n = 133), we demonstrated that GAMCHECK was more effective solely on GRCS than AO at both one-week and four-week follow-up. Furthermore, by the 12-week follow-up, GAMCHECK significantly more effective than AO on gambling symptoms measured by the GSAS, number of gambling days and amount of money spent on gambling during the prior week, GRCS, and PGI-C at 12-week follow-up. No significant effects were found for help-seeking behaviors. Cognitive distortion mediated the effect on change in GSAS scores. GAMCHECK was significantly effective in improving gambling symptoms, number of gambling days, amount of money spent on gambling, and cognitive distortion. However, regarding help-seeking behavior, further refinement of GAMCHECK is necessary to motivate problem gamblers to take actions to solve their problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":48155,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gambling Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Internet-Based Personalized Normative Feedback Among Individuals Experiencing Problem Gambling: Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Kengo Yokomitsu, Kazuya Inoue, Eiichi Kamimura, Sachio Matsushita, Ryuhei So\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10899-024-10364-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to examine whether fully automated and Internet-based personalized normative feedback (GAMCHECK) improves problem gambling symptoms and behaviors. We used a randomized parallel-group superiority design to examine whether GAMCHECK would be more effective than an assessment-only (AO) condition at 12-week follow-up. This study was conducted online using questionnaires and the LINE app. Participants were recruited through online surveys. All outcomes were assessed using Internet-based questionnaires. We used a linear mixed model to assess the effects of GAMCHECK on scores for the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS) as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C), number of gambling days, money spent on gambling, and help-seeking behaviors. With data from 274 participants (GAMCHECK: n = 141; AO: n = 133), we demonstrated that GAMCHECK was more effective solely on GRCS than AO at both one-week and four-week follow-up. Furthermore, by the 12-week follow-up, GAMCHECK significantly more effective than AO on gambling symptoms measured by the GSAS, number of gambling days and amount of money spent on gambling during the prior week, GRCS, and PGI-C at 12-week follow-up. No significant effects were found for help-seeking behaviors. Cognitive distortion mediated the effect on change in GSAS scores. GAMCHECK was significantly effective in improving gambling symptoms, number of gambling days, amount of money spent on gambling, and cognitive distortion. However, regarding help-seeking behavior, further refinement of GAMCHECK is necessary to motivate problem gamblers to take actions to solve their problems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10364-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gambling Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10364-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在检验完全自动化和基于互联网的个性化规范反馈(GAMCHECK)是否能改善问题赌博症状和行为。在12周的随访中,我们采用随机平行组优势设计来检验GAMCHECK是否比仅评估(AO)条件更有效。这项研究是通过在线问卷和LINE应用程序进行的。参与者是通过在线调查招募的。所有结果均采用基于互联网的问卷进行评估。我们使用线性混合模型来评估GAMCHECK对赌博症状评估量表(GSAS)得分的影响,并将其作为主要结果;次要结果是赌博相关认知量表(GRCS)、患者总体变化印象(PGI-C)、赌博天数、赌博花费和求助行为。数据来自274名参与者(GAMCHECK: n = 141;AO: n = 133),我们证明在1周和4周的随访中,GAMCHECK单独治疗GRCS比AO更有效。此外,在12周的随访中,GAMCHECK在GSAS、前一周的赌博天数和赌博金额、GRCS和12周随访时的PGI-C测量的赌博症状方面显著优于AO。没有发现对求助行为有显著影响。认知扭曲介导了GSAS分数变化的影响。GAMCHECK在改善赌博症状、赌博天数、赌博金额和认知扭曲方面显着有效。然而,在求助行为方面,GAMCHECK需要进一步完善,以激励问题赌徒采取行动解决问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effectiveness of Internet-Based Personalized Normative Feedback Among Individuals Experiencing Problem Gambling: Randomized Controlled Trial.

This study aimed to examine whether fully automated and Internet-based personalized normative feedback (GAMCHECK) improves problem gambling symptoms and behaviors. We used a randomized parallel-group superiority design to examine whether GAMCHECK would be more effective than an assessment-only (AO) condition at 12-week follow-up. This study was conducted online using questionnaires and the LINE app. Participants were recruited through online surveys. All outcomes were assessed using Internet-based questionnaires. We used a linear mixed model to assess the effects of GAMCHECK on scores for the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS) as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C), number of gambling days, money spent on gambling, and help-seeking behaviors. With data from 274 participants (GAMCHECK: n = 141; AO: n = 133), we demonstrated that GAMCHECK was more effective solely on GRCS than AO at both one-week and four-week follow-up. Furthermore, by the 12-week follow-up, GAMCHECK significantly more effective than AO on gambling symptoms measured by the GSAS, number of gambling days and amount of money spent on gambling during the prior week, GRCS, and PGI-C at 12-week follow-up. No significant effects were found for help-seeking behaviors. Cognitive distortion mediated the effect on change in GSAS scores. GAMCHECK was significantly effective in improving gambling symptoms, number of gambling days, amount of money spent on gambling, and cognitive distortion. However, regarding help-seeking behavior, further refinement of GAMCHECK is necessary to motivate problem gamblers to take actions to solve their problems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Journal of Gambling Studies is an interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination on the many aspects of gambling behavior, both controlled and pathological, as well as variety of problems attendant to, or resultant from, gambling behavior including alcoholism, suicide, crime, and a number of other mental health problems. Articles published in this journal are representative of a cross-section of disciplines including psychiatry, psychology, sociology, political science, criminology, and social work.
期刊最新文献
"When People Reach Out that is When They're Desperate": Understanding Informal and Formal Help-Seeking Practices for Gambling among Aboriginal Peoples in the Northern Territory, Australia. Disability Benefit and Gambling Disorder: A Longitudinal Study Based on National Registry Data. The Role of Social Deficits in the Link Between Social Gambling Motives and Problem Gambling. The General Acceptability and Use of Smartphone App-Delivered Interventions for Gambling in Australia. Striving Towards National Lower-Risk Gambling Guidelines: An Empirical Investigation Among a Sample of Swedish Gamblers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1