Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30610506›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gambling studies2019

A Meta-analysis of Brief Personalized Feedback Interventions for Problematic Gambling.

Samuel C Peter, Emma I Brett, Matthew T Suda, Eleanor L S Leavens, Mary Beth Miller, Thad R Leffingwell, James P Whelan, Andrew W Meyers

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gambling studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel C PeterInstitute of Gambling Education and Research, The University of Memphis, Room 202 Psychology Building, 400 Innovation Drive, Memphis, TN, 38152-6400, USA. gambling@memphis.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1443-8911
Emma I BrettOklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Matthew T SudaUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Eleanor L S LeavensOklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Mary Beth MillerUniversity of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Thad R LeffingwellOklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
James P WhelanInstitute of Gambling Education and Research, The University of Memphis, Room 202 Psychology Building, 400 Innovation Drive, Memphis, TN, 38152-6400, USA.
Andrew W MeyersInstitute of Gambling Education and Research, The University of Memphis, Room 202 Psychology Building, 400 Innovation Drive, Memphis, TN, 38152-6400, USA.
Oklahoma State University · USUniversity of Memphis · USUniversity of Missouri · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal Feedback Interventions (PFIs) have been widely used to reduce the amount of time and money individuals spend on gambling. A central component of these interventions is personalized information about an individual's gambling behavior, often in comparison to others' gambling. The purpose of the present review and meta-analysis was to evaluate these interventions in terms of content, mode of delivery, target sample, and efficacy. Sixteen interventions from 11 studies were reviewed. We found a small, statistically significant effect in favor of PFIs versus control (d = 0.20, 95% CI 0.12, 0.27). Six moderators of intervention efficacy were explored. These interventions appeared to be most efficacious when used in populations of greater gambling severity, when individuals were provided with gambling-related educational information, and when used in conjunction with motivational interviewing. Factors associated with reduced efficacy include in-person delivery of feedback without motivational-interviewing and informing participants of their score on a psychological measure of gambling severity. Efficacy did not vary as a function of college or community samples. PFIs are a low cost, easily disseminated intervention that can be used as a harm-reduction strategy. However, more substantial effects may be attained if used as part of a larger course of therapy.

Indexed as

AdultBiofeedback, PsychologyCognitive Behavioral TherapyFemaleGamblingHumansInternal-External ControlMaleMotivational InterviewingPatient ComplianceTreatment OutcomeUniversitiesYoung AdultBrief treatmentsGamblingMeta-analysisPersonalized feedback

Identifiers

PMID30610506
OpenAlexW2908331449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.