Challet-Bouju Gaëlle, Perrot Bastien, Romo Lucia, Valleur Marc, Magalon David, Fatséas Mélina, Chéreau-Boudet Isabelle, Luquiens Amandine, Grall-Bronnec Marie, Hardouin Jean-Benoit
CHU Nantes, Clinical Investigation Unit BALANCED "BehaviorAL AddictioNs and ComplEx mood Disorders," Department of Addictology and Psychiatry , France.
EA 4275 SPHERE "bioStatistics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Human sciEnces Research tEam," Faculties of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Nantes , France.
J Behav Addict. 2016 Jun;5(2):239-50. doi: 10.1556/2006.5.2016.030. Epub 2016 Jun 27.
Background and aims The aim of this study was to test the screening properties of several combinations of items from gambling scales, in order to harmonize screening of gambling problems in epidemiological surveys. The objective was to propose two brief screening tools (three items or less) for a use in interviews and self-administered questionnaires. Methods We tested the screening properties of combinations of items from several gambling scales, in a sample of 425 gamblers (301 non-problem gamblers and 124 disordered gamblers). Items tested included interview-based items (Pathological Gambling section of the DSM-IV, lifetime history of problem gambling, monthly expenses in gambling, and abstinence of 1 month or more) and self-report items (South Oaks Gambling Screen, Gambling Attitudes, and Beliefs Survey). The gold standard used was the diagnosis of a gambling disorder according to the DSM-5. Results Two versions of the Rapid Screener for Problem Gambling (RSPG) were developed: the RSPG-Interview (RSPG-I), being composed of two interview items (increasing bets and loss of control), and the RSPG-Self-Assessment (RSPG-SA), being composed of three self-report items (chasing, guiltiness, and perceived inability to stop). Discussion and conclusions We recommend using the RSPG-SA/I for screening problem gambling in epidemiological surveys, with the version adapted for each purpose (RSPG-I for interview-based surveys and RSPG-SA for self-administered surveys). This first triage of potential problem gamblers must be supplemented by further assessment, as it may overestimate the proportion of problem gamblers. However, a first triage has the great advantage of saving time and energy in large-scale screening for problem gambling.
背景与目的 本研究旨在测试赌博量表中若干项目组合的筛查特性，以便在流行病学调查中统一赌博问题的筛查。目的是提出两种简短的筛查工具（三项及以下），用于访谈和自填式问卷。方法 我们在425名赌徒样本（301名无问题赌徒和124名紊乱赌徒）中测试了若干赌博量表项目组合的筛查特性。测试的项目包括基于访谈的项目（《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版中的病态赌博部分、赌博问题的终生史、每月赌博支出以及1个月或更长时间的戒赌情况）和自我报告项目（南橡树赌博筛查量表、赌博态度与信念调查）。所采用的金标准是根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版对赌博障碍进行的诊断。结果 开发了两种版本的问题赌博快速筛查工具（RSPG）：RSPG访谈版（RSPG-I），由两个访谈项目（增加赌注和失去控制）组成；RSPG自我评估版（RSPG-SA），由三个自我报告项目（追逐、内疚感和感觉无法停止）组成。讨论与结论 我们建议在流行病学调查中使用RSPG-SA/I进行问题赌博筛查，并根据不同目的采用相应版本（基于访谈的调查用RSPG-I，自填式调查用RSPG-SA）。对潜在问题赌徒的这一初步分类必须辅以进一步评估，因为它可能高估问题赌徒的比例。然而，初步分类在大规模问题赌博筛查中具有节省时间和精力的巨大优势。
