Faculty of Education - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/161

Filters

2015 - 2016 2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Type: Journal Article × Author: Dowling, Nicole × Author: Francis, Kate ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Dowling, NA ; Cowlishaw, S ; Jackson, AC ; Merkouris, SS ; Francis, KL ; Christensen, DR (SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2015-06)
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyse the prevalence of co-morbid psychiatric disorders (DSM-IV Axis I disorders) among treatment-seeking problem gamblers. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for peer-reviewed studies that provided prevalence estimates of Axis I psychiatric disorders in individuals seeking psychological or pharmacological treatment for problem gambling (including pathological gambling). Meta-analytic techniques were performed to estimate the weighted mean effect size and heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Results from 36 studies identified high rates of co-morbid current (74.8%, 95% CI 36.5-93.9) and lifetime (75.5%, 95% CI 46.5-91.8) Axis I disorders. There were high rates of current mood disorders (23.1%, 95% CI 14.9-34.0), alcohol use disorders (21.2%, 95% CI 15.6-28.1), anxiety disorders (17.6%, 95% CI 10.8-27.3) and substance (non-alcohol) use disorders (7.0%, 95% CI 1.7-24.9). Specifically, the highest mean prevalence of current psychiatric disorders was for nicotine dependence (56.4%, 95% CI 35.7-75.2) and major depressive disorder (29.9%, 95% CI 20.5-41.3), with smaller estimates for alcohol abuse (18.2%, 95% CI 13.4-24.2), alcohol dependence (15.2%, 95% CI 10.2-22.0), social phobia (14.9%, 95% CI 2.0-59.8), generalised anxiety disorder (14.4%, 95% CI 3.9-40.8), panic disorder (13.7%, 95% CI 6.7-26.0), post-traumatic stress disorder (12.3%, 95% CI 3.4-35.7), cannabis use disorder (11.5%, 95% CI 4.8-25.0), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (9.3%, 95% CI 4.1-19.6), adjustment disorder (9.2%, 95% CI 4.8-17.2), bipolar disorder (8.8%, 95% CI 4.4-17.1) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (8.2%, 95% CI 3.4-18.6). There were no consistent patterns according to gambling problem severity, type of treatment facility and study jurisdiction. Although these estimates were robust to the inclusion of studies with non-representative sampling biases, they should be interpreted with caution as they were highly variable across studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need for gambling treatment services to undertake routine screening and assessment of psychiatric co-morbidity and provide treatment approaches that adequately manage these co-morbid disorders. Further research is required to explore the reasons for the variability observed in the prevalence estimates.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    National estimates of Australian gambling prevalence: findings from a dual-frame omnibus survey
    Dowling, NA ; Youssef, GJ ; Jackson, AC ; Pennay, DW ; Francis, KL ; Pennay, A ; Lubman, DI (WILEY, 2016-03)
    BACKGROUND, AIMS AND DESIGN: The increase in mobile telephone-only households may be a source of bias for traditional landline gambling prevalence surveys. Aims were to: (1) identify Australian gambling participation and problem gambling prevalence using a dual-frame (50% landline and 50% mobile telephone) computer-assisted telephone interviewing methodology; (2) explore the predictors of sample frame and telephone status; and (3) explore the degree to which sample frame and telephone status moderate the relationships between respondent characteristics and problem gambling. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2000 adult respondents residing in Australia were interviewed from March to April 2013. MEASUREMENTS: Participation in multiple gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). FINDINGS: Estimates were: gambling participation [63.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 61.4-66.3], problem gambling (0.4%, 95% CI = 0.2-0.8), moderate-risk gambling (1.9%, 95% CI = 1.3-2.6) and low-risk gambling (3.0%, 95% CI = 2.2-4.0). Relative to the landline frame, the mobile frame was more likely to gamble on horse/greyhound races [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4], casino table games (OR = 5.0), sporting events (OR = 2.2), private games (OR = 1.9) and the internet (OR = 6.5); less likely to gamble on lotteries (OR = 0.6); and more likely to gamble on five or more activities (OR = 2.4), display problem gambling (OR = 6.4) and endorse PGSI items (OR = 2.4-6.1). Only casino table gambling (OR = 2.9) and internet gambling (OR = 3.5) independently predicted mobile frame membership. Telephone status (landline frame versus mobile dual users and mobile-only users) displayed similar findings. Finally, sample frame and/or telephone status moderated the relationship between gender, relationship status, health and problem gambling (OR = 2.9-7.6). CONCLUSION: Given expected future increases in the mobile telephone-only population, best practice in population gambling research should use dual frame sampling methodologies (at least 50% landline and 50% mobile telephone) for telephone interviewing.