ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Decision Making in Addictive Behaviors Based on Prospect Theory: A Systematic Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Behavioral Science in Digital Therapeutics for Individuals With Prediabetes: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Sex differences in reward network activation are linked to problematic substance use among high-risk adolescents.Advances in drug and alcohol research · 2025Article
- How "Light" Is "Light Smoking"? On the Cognitive Power of Nicotine Dependence.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- When Games Influence Words: Gaming Addiction among College Students Increases Verbal Aggression through Risk-Biased Drifting in Decision-Making.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Exploring the Loss Aversion Scale's psychometric properties in Spain.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Measuring self-regulation in everyday life: Reliability and validity of smartphone-based experiments in alcohol use disorder.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Prospect Theory: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review in the Categories of Psychology in Web of Science.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- How to promote the hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system: A tripartite evolutionary game theory perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Traditionally, research on addictive behaviors has been based on the study of their risk factors, with impulsivity being the main risk factor. However, this study aims to approach this topic from the analysis of decision making. According to the prospect theory, low levels of loss and risk aversion will increase the probability of showing addictive behaviors. A systematic review of the possible relationships between these behaviors and prospect theory was carried out. To this end, the works that have studied loss and risk aversion in populations with addictive behaviors to date (N = 15) were compiled. Apart from other eligibility criteria, the selection process was only performed with studies that included the prospect theory or cumulative prospect theory, in English or Spanish, since 1979. WoS, Scopus, Dialnet and PsycInfo were the information sources selected. For this purpose, PRISMA guidelines have been followed. It was found that users of addictive substances show less loss aversion than nonusers. These results cannot be transferred to pathological gamblers. The significance of this work for future research and the implementation of prevention and intervention programs is highlighted. The results show an approach to addictions from a novel perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.