


Further research on the validity of these tools in a clinical setting or in a treatment seeking population is needed to assess their utility in screening for co-occurring gambling and substance use harms. The limited reliability of scales measuring attitudes, subjective norms, and knowledge raises additional concerns about whether the scales were suitably adapted to predict talking about gambling behaviours (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Ceiling effects were observed for ‘beneficial’ and ‘effective’ attitude items, with 47.2% and 21.4% of participants, respectively, responding with the maximum possible rating of 5. Similar ceiling effects were observed for the ‘colleague’ subjective norm item (46.1% of responses being gullybet login the maximum) and the ‘others’ subjective norm item (36.0% as the maximum).
This 20-item scale is perhaps the most well-known screening tool (Abbott & Volberg, 2006; Hodgins et al., 2011). While the SOGS has been shown to accurately identify clients with problem gambling it was developed using DSM-III criteria and does not reflect the currently used DSM-5 criteria (Hodgins et al., 2011; Toneatto & Miller, 2004; Wickwire et al., 2008). Discuss the results of the screening immediately with your client, as well as any follow-up assessment, treatment or referral the client might need (Matua Raki, 2016). If the screening results are positive, conduct a full assessment, if possible, or refer your client to specialized services (George & Murali, 2005; Matua Raki, 2016).
These barriers to accurate gambling disorder screenings have far-reaching consequences that affect not only individuals but also their families, communities, and society as a whole. Screening tools often take a one-size-fits-all approach, assuming that a single set of questions will resonate with everyone. But gambling behaviors—and how people understand and talk about them—are deeply influenced by culture, language, and lived experience. In the study by Roberts et al. 44 over 75% of GPs identified financial hardship, anxiety, depression, preoccupation with gambling, stress, lying to conceal gambling and previous failed attempts to reduce gambling as being symptoms of gambling problems.
To address this lack of provision, around 15 government funded clinics are planned in the next three years as part of the National Health Service Long Term Plan 35 which will expand on services currently available. Therefore, there is a key opportunity to consider the role of screening and brief intervention as part of a developing referral pathway. This systematic review aimed to identify what is known about interventions delivered by health, care and citizen support agencies to screen for risk of gambling-related harm in the general population. It aimed to scrutinise evidence from quantitative, qualitative and discursive academic papers, together with grey literature. This review seeks to understand how co-occurring substance use and gambling harms are being managed in treatment settings. It draws together available data on the intersections of substance use harms and gambling related harms in a treatment context with the aim of establishing an evidence base on which services can begin to build best practice approaches for responding to such co-occurring harms.
Content analysis of the interview data revealed three overarching themes, further divided into 16 supporting subthemes (see Fig. 3). Generalised structural equation modelling was used to examine the effect of the different predictors on the outcome. To determine the overall fit of the proposed model (TPB), a generalised structural equation model (GSEM) was conducted as per the full model in Fig.
Providers can refer patients in Tennessee to The Gambling Clinic, knowing that financial barriers will not prevent treatment. Additionally, we encourage providers to collaborate with us, ensuring they stay informed about their patients’ progress and treatment outcomes. Peter et al. (2022) found that individuals with lower education levels were 16% less likely to answer screening questions accurately compared to college-educated respondents. This highlights the importance of tailoring tools to meet the needs of all patients, regardless of educational background. The questions are often filled with complicated language, long sentences, or phrasing that’s difficult to follow. Instead of feeling supported or understood, they’re left confused, second-guessing their answers, and wondering if they’re giving the “right” response.
A 2002 study showed that approximately 2 per cent of Ontario adults have a gambling problem (Rush et al., 2002). Another Ontario-based report showed that about 30 per cent of people experiencing a gambling problem have a co-occurring mental health issues, and more than 3 per cent have a co-occurring substance use problem (Williams & Volberg, 2013). Providers are welcome to contact The Gambling Clinic for guidance on managing patient care, even if their patients choose not to pursue treatment immediately. Our team is here to assist providers in navigating the complexities of gambling addiction and supporting their patients through every stage of the recovery journey.
This page explores the evidence on screening and assessment for problem gambling and explains the recommended approaches you can use in your clinical practice. This information for mental health and addiction service providers is based on a literature review conducted by an expert in the field. At The Gambling Clinic, we recognize the critical role healthcare providers play in identifying and addressing gambling disorders.
There is a wide range of screening tools available for identifying gambling harms in individuals seeking treatment for substance use harms. Across the dataset 11 gambling screening tools were identified that have been validated in substance use treatment-seeking populations. With the exception of the 17-item NODS and the 27-item GDSQ-P, these are short (9 items or less) and can easily be included as part of a broader intake process. Five gambling screening tools comprise 4 item or fewer and have been developed to rapidly assess gambling harms. Brief screening can take a clinician less than 2 min to complete and requires little interpretive skill (Himelhoch et al., 2015). Services might select an appropriate screening tool based on a balance of brevity, client and clinician acceptability, sensitivity and specificity.
Results were examined systematically up to, and including, page 30 (300 results generated), as recommended by Haddaway et al. (2015; Piasecki et al., 2018). Where links led to academic articles, these were automatically exported into Endnote; where links were directed to organisational or government websites, a further search was conducted of publications appearing on these sites. The final sample consisted of 89 participants, 71.9% female, aged between 26 and 83 years.
Together, we can reduce the stigma surrounding gambling addiction and make meaningful strides in addressing this growing public health issue. Providers can access the Memphis Gambling Scale (MGS), a validated tool designed to help identify patients struggling with gambling disorders. These resources enable healthcare professionals to ask open-ended, non-stigmatizing questions that foster productive conversations about gambling behaviors. Although efforts were made to share the survey, the convenience sampling method resulted in take-up among participants who already had an interest or awareness of gambling harm. Self-selection bias can significantly impact data variability by skewing the data based on participants’ pre-existing interests; here, most participants reported already talking to their clients about gambling, and ceiling effects were observed for key variables (Olsen 2008). Future research should investigate whether similar trends apply to higher-level behaviours related to gambling detection in treatment settings.
Analysis of interview data revealed that a lack of knowledge about problem gambling screening techniques and referral pathways were barriers. Organisational constraints, underfunding, and the urgency of addressing more immediate concerns reduce professionals’ motivation and capacity to screen for gambling problems. Rogers et al. 46 discussed the potential for social work in the UK to be a setting for use of SBIRT to screen problem gamblers. They argued that social workers provide more support to people with problems relating to addictions than those in other helping professions. Despite this, the training of social workers in addiction and the evidence base relating to social work and addictions were described as sparse. The authors recommended that efforts to improve recognition of problem gambling, and facilitate referral to treatment, would be well placed with gambling moved “onto the radar” of the social work profession via training programmes, research and dissemination of good practice.
Share on: