Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00078273

Indicated Prevention With At-Risk Gamblers

The overall purpose of this study is to reduce the prevalence of gambling risk in college students by evaluating the effectiveness of different treatments in reducing gambling behavior and related negative consequences.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

17 year–24 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 2

Primary location

University of Washington; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Seattle, Washington, 98195, United States

About this study

Participants in this study will be randomly assigned to a personal feedback intervention (PFI) or assessment only for 3 years. The PFI intervention will be delivered in a single session. Measures will include the NORC DSM Screen for Problem Gambling (NODS), the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), Gambling Quantity and Perceived Norms, Perceived Injunctive Gambling Norms, Gambling Problems Index, gambling frequency, attitudes and beliefs about gambling and self-control, readiness to change, gambling expectancies, gambling motives, gambling risk perception, psychiatric symptoms, assertiveness, coping skills, substance use, alcohol-related problems, self-determination, and social desirability.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • College student
  • South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) score greater than 3

Exclusion criteria

  • None, other than not meeting inclusion criteria

Treatment and study plan

Personalized Feedback Intervention

Behavioral

Sessions lasted for 60-90 minutes and used Motivational Interviewing (MI) to facilitate discussion of feedback from participants' survey responses. Sessions began with open-ended questions about contextual factors associated with participants' gambling, then review of each feedback section: gambling pattern; perceived gambling norms; positive expectancies and negative consequences of gambling; beliefs about control over gambling; and situational self-efficacy to avoid gambling. Participants were encouraged to consider the feedback in light of their personal goals. All participants received a copy of their feedback, a list of skills for limiting gambling and a resource/referral list.

Cognitive Behavioral Intervention

Behavioral

Participants completed either six weekly 1-hour sessions or attend four sessions containing the same content. Sessions covered functional analysis and gambling triggers; challenging cognitive distortions, with emphasis on illusions of control; coping with triggers; assertiveness; and relapse prevention. Participants received a pamphlet covering each week's topic (which was reviewed with the participant if a session was missed), as well as homework sheets and gambling diaries. CBI participants were asked to refrain from gambling for the duration of the group to provide an opportunity to practice and develop skills applicable to gambling and other behavior change situations.

Primary outcomes

  1. South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS)

    Time frame: 6-Months

    The 20-item South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) measures gambling involvement and problem severity based on DSM-III-R pathological gambling criteria.

  2. Gambling Quantity and Perceived Norms Scale (GQPN)

    Time frame: 6 Months

    The gambling quantity and perceived norms scale (GQPN) includes a six-item expenditure subscale assessing amount of money won/lost through gambling on a 10-point scale from $0 to more than $2000 over time-periods from the past month to past year. Additional items assess gambling frequency (on a 10-point scale from never to every day in the past year), disposable income (on an 11-point scale from less than $50 to more than $500 per month) and perceptions of gambling frequency and expenditure for the typical college student (perceived norms). Gambling expenditure was calculated as the expenditure subscale mean residualized on disposable income.

  3. Gambling Frequency (SOGS)

    Time frame: 6 Months

    The SOGS was modified to assess internet gambling frequency and expand gambling frequency response options from a three- to a five-point scale with anchors of no times, one to 10 times, more than 10 times, less than weekly, weekly or more than weekly but less than daily, and daily. This modified frequency scale has been shown to correlate highly with other measures of gambling frequency.

  4. Gambling Problems Index (GPI)

    Time frame: 6 Months

    Gambling problems (or negative consequences) were assessed using the 20-item Gambling Problems Index (GPI). Participants indicated how often, from never to more than 10 times in the past 6 months, they experienced consequences while, or as a result of, gambling.

  5. National Opinion Research Center DSM-IV Screen for Pathological Gambling (NODS)

    Time frame: 6 Months

    DSM-IV [1] criteria for pathological gambling were assessed using the 17-item National Opinion Research Center DSM-IV Screen (NODS). Some criteria have multiple items, but possible scores range from 0-10 DSM-IV criteria endorsed in the past 6 months.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Illusions of Control

    Time frame: 6 Months

    Illusions of control were assessed via a six-item subscale from the Beliefs About Control Scale (BACS), on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Washington

Other

Collaborators

  • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2003
Primary completion
2003
Study completion
2003
First posted
Feb 24, 2004
Registry last updated
Dec 11, 2013

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.