Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Addiction. 2012 Jun;107(6):1148-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03776.x. Epub 2012 Feb 28.
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate feasibility and efficacy of two promising approaches to indicated prevention of disordered gambling in a college population.
Randomized clinical trial with assignment to a personalized feedback intervention (PFI), cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI) or assessment-only control (AOC). PFI was delivered individually in a single session and included feedback regarding gambling behavior, norms, consequences and risk-reduction tips, delivered in a motivational interviewing style. CBI was delivered in small groups over four to six sessions and included functional analysis and brief cognitive correction, as well as identification of and alternatives for responding to gambling triggers.
College campus.
At-risk or probable pathological gamblers (n = 147; 65.3% male; group assignment: PFI, n = 52; CBI, n = 44; AOC, n = 51).
Self-reported gambling quantity, frequency, consequences, psychopathology, normative perceptions and beliefs.
Relative to control, results at 6-month follow-up indicated reductions in both interventions for gambling consequences (PFI d = 0.48; CBI d = 0.39) and DSM-IV criteria (PFI d = 0.60; CBI d = 0.48), reductions in frequency for PFI (d = 0.48). CBI was associated with reduced illusions of control, whereas PFI was associated with reduced perceptions of gambling frequency norms. Reductions in perceived gambling frequency norms mediated effects of PFI on gambling frequency.
A single-session personalized feedback intervention and a multi-session cognitive-behavioral intervention may be helpful in reducing disordered gambling in US college students.
本研究旨在评估两种有前途的方法在大学生群体中进行有针对性的赌博障碍预防的可行性和效果。
一项随机临床试验，将参与者分配至个性化反馈干预（PFI）、认知行为干预（CBI）或仅评估对照组（AOC）。PFI 以个体形式单次进行，包括有关赌博行为、规范、后果和降低风险提示的反馈，以动机访谈的方式呈现。CBI 通过四到六次小组会议进行，包括功能分析和简短的认知矫正，以及确定和替代赌博触发因素的反应。
大学校园。
有风险或可能有赌博障碍的赌徒（n = 147；65.3%为男性；分组：PFI，n = 52；CBI，n = 44；AOC，n = 51）。
自我报告的赌博数量、频率、后果、精神病理学、规范感知和信念。
与对照组相比，6 个月随访时，两种干预措施均显示出赌博后果的减少（PFI 的 d = 0.48；CBI 的 d = 0.39）和 DSM-IV 标准（PFI 的 d = 0.60；CBI 的 d = 0.48），PFI 的频率减少（d = 0.48）。CBI 与减少控制错觉有关，而 PFI 与减少对赌博频率规范的感知有关。PFI 对赌博频率的影响可通过减少感知赌博频率规范来解释。
单次个性化反馈干预和多次认知行为干预可能有助于减少美国大学生的赌博障碍。
