Trial reportJournal of gambling studies2026
Helping Others Promote Engagement in Gambling Support (HOPE-Gam): a Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of gambling studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Problem gambling (PG) causes significant harm yet help-seeking rates remain low. Concerned significant others (CSOs) may play a pivotal role in motivating treatment-refusing gamblers to seek help. The Helping Others Promote Engagement in Gambling Support (HOPE-Gam) intervention was developed to support CSOs in this role. This pilot randomised controlled trial assessed its feasibility and acceptability. Secondary aims included preliminary exploration of efficacy signals and refinement of trial procedures for a future large-scale study. The trial was registered retrospectively on 03/09/25 with ANZCTR: ACTRN12625000970448. Thirty adult CSOs were randomised to either HOPE-Gam or standard care (SC). Both interventions were manualised and delivered over six sessions by cognitive behaviour therapists. HOPE-Gam incorporated behavioural strategies informed by learning theory and contingency management principles. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, retention, and data completeness. Secondary outcomes included gambler treatment entry and CSO well-being. Recruitment (65%; 95% CI: 50.8%–77.3%) was feasible via digital outreach; retention was moderate (33% lost to follow-up). Treatment entry was higher in the HOPE-Gam group (60% vs. 7%, p = 0.002). There was a greater reduction in K10 scores in the HOPE-Gam group at post-treatment (-6.99, 95% CI -12 to -1.90, p = 0.007) and 1-month follow-up (-8.20, 95% CI -3.4 to -13.2, p = 0.002). No adverse events were reported. HOPE-Gam shows promise as a feasible and potentially effective intervention for CSOs of treatment-refusing individuals with PG. Findings support progression to a fully powered trial to evaluate efficacy and safety. HOPE-Gam may offer a valuable addition to clinical practice, addressing the gap in support for CSOs and contributing to harm reduction in PG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41649703What 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.