Trial reportJournal of gambling studies2025
Effectiveness of Internet-Based Personalized Normative Feedback Among Individuals Experiencing Problem Gambling: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of gambling studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Personalized Feedback Interventions for Indicated Prevention of Gambling Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gambling studies · 2025Pooled it
- Can Large Language Models Address Problem Gambling? Expert Insights from Gambling Treatment Professionals.Journal of gambling studies · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to examine whether fully automated and Internet-based personalized normative feedback (GAMCHECK) improves problem gambling symptoms and behaviors. We used a randomized parallel-group superiority design to examine whether GAMCHECK would be more effective than an assessment-only (AO) condition at 12-week follow-up. This study was conducted online using questionnaires and the LINE app. Participants were recruited through online surveys. All outcomes were assessed using Internet-based questionnaires. We used a linear mixed model to assess the effects of GAMCHECK on scores for the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS) as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C), number of gambling days, money spent on gambling, and help-seeking behaviors. With data from 274 participants (GAMCHECK: n = 141; AO: n = 133), we demonstrated that GAMCHECK was more effective solely on GRCS than AO at both one-week and four-week follow-up. Furthermore, by the 12-week follow-up, GAMCHECK significantly more effective than AO on gambling symptoms measured by the GSAS, number of gambling days and amount of money spent on gambling during the prior week, GRCS, and PGI-C at 12-week follow-up. No significant effects were found for help-seeking behaviors. Cognitive distortion mediated the effect on change in GSAS scores. GAMCHECK was significantly effective in improving gambling symptoms, number of gambling days, amount of money spent on gambling, and cognitive distortion. However, regarding help-seeking behavior, further refinement of GAMCHECK is necessary to motivate problem gamblers to take actions to solve their problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39738910What 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.