4.2 Article

Subtyping Pathological Gamblers Based on Impulsivity, Depression, and Anxiety

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 680-688

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0019906

关键词

pathological gambling; Pathways model; depression; impulsivity; gambling subtype

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA021567-03, P30 DA023918, P30-DA023918, R01-DA021567, P30 DA023918-01A1, R01 DA021567] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH060417, R01-MH60417, R01 MH060417-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined putative subtypes of pathological gamblers (PGs) based on the Pathways model, and it also evaluated whether the subtypes would benefit differentially from treatment. Treatment-seeking PGs (N = 229) were categorized into Pathways subtypes based on scores from questionnaires assessing anxiety, depression, and impulsivity. The Addiction Severity Index-Gambling assessed severity of gambling problems at baseline, posttreatment. and 12-month follow-up. Compared with behaviorally conditioned (BC) gamblers, emotionally vulnerable (EV) gamblers had higher psychiatric and gambling severity. and were more likely to have a parent with a psychiatric history. Antisocial impulsive (AI) gamblers also had elevated gambling and psychiatric severity relative to BC gamblers. They were more likely to have antisocial personality disorder and had the highest legal and family/social severity scores. They were also most likely to have a history of substance abuse treatment, history of inpatient psychiatric treatment, and a parent with a substance use or gambling problem. AI and EV gamblers experienced greater gambling severity throughout treatment than BC gamblers. hut all three subtypes demonstrated similar patterns of treatment response. Thus, the three Pathways subtypes differ on some baseline characteristics, but subtyping did not predict treatment outcomes beyond a simple association with problem gambling severity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据