- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02613754
Adding Contingency Management to Treatment as Usual for Disordered Gambling.
The Impact of Adding Contingency Management to Treatment as Usual for Disordered Gambling
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Hypothesis Behavioural approaches are direct and powerful ways of modifying problematic behaviours. The prediction is that adding best-practice CM treatments to TAU will reduce gambling behaviour and gambling urges to a greater degree than standard counselling practices.
Background Problematic gambling is a significant Canadian public health concern that causes harm to the gambler, their families, and society at large (Huang & Boyer, 2007). Approximately 4% of Albertans gamble in problematic ways resulting in significant financial losses, personal distress, relationship break-downs, and in some cases suicide (Williams et al., 2011; Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario, 2014). However, recent trends appear to show a decline in those seeking treatment despite the relatively consistent problem/disordered gambling prevalence rates (Williams et al., 2011). Further, 33% - 50% of treatment seekers drop out prior to the issue resolving (Leblonde et al., 2003), where those with the most severe gambling problems have the highest drop-out rates (ibid). One possible reason for these issues is the lack of immediate benefits clients gain from treatment attendance.
One treatment approach that provides immediate benefit for treatment attendance and superior treatment efficacy for substance and alcohol dependence is contingency management (Petry, 2010). Contingency management uses motivational incentives, typically vouchers that are exchangeable for retail goods and services, as rewards that participants receive for providing evidence of the target behavior and withholding them when the participant fails to perform the behaviour. This treatment has been used successfully in several countries in the treatment of various addictive substances (Garcia-Rodriguez et al., 2009; Peirce et al., 2006), and to promote healthy behaviours (Petry et al., 2011). Meta-analyses have consistently found contingency management to report improved clinical outcomes and the highest of treatment effect sizes (Dutra et al., 2010; Prendergast et al., 2006). Further, contingency management programs typically report a greater likelihood of program completion than standard care (Lott & Jencius, 2009), where the positive effects of the treatment persist many months after treatment completion (Petry & Martin, 2002).
Researchers are now suggesting that contingencies can be important mechanism in the treatment of gambling (Petry et al., 2006; Christensen, 2013), as the variable but regular nature of the receipt of gambling wins have been associated with the development of problematic gambling (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002), where contingency management uses the same approach to reverse these associations. Moreover, recent research suggests that the development of non-gambling reinforcement can successfully compete with the gambling experience resulting in reductions in gambling behaviour and increases in alternative, and pro-social, behaviours (Jackson et al., 2013).
Although CM appears very successful, it has only been previously applied once to problematic gambling (West, 2008). However, there were issues with the pilot procedure (Christensen, 2013), as the program implemented was non-standard, notably the reinforcers were delayed, infrequent, of a low level, resulting in modest CM treatment outcomes (Petry, 2010). This proposal will use techniques that have been shown to improve the efficacy of a CM program. These are; 1) increasing the rate of incentives for sustained performance of the target behaviour and resetting following a lapse (Petry et al., 2006), 2) providing incentives at regular intervals (Christensen, 2013), 3) providing incentives as soon as practicable after evidence of the target behaviour is provided (Zeiler, 1977; Griffith et al., 2000), and 4) providing sufficiently meaningful incentives (Dallery et al., 2001). These additions to the standard CM procedure, which are typically used in successful treatments for substance dependence (Chopra et al., 2011), will hopefully improve the treatment efficacy of CM for disordered gamblers.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
- Name: Susan Entz
- Phone Number: (403) 329-2747
- Email: susan.entz@uleth.ca
Study Locations
-
-
Alberta
-
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, T1K3M4
- University of Lethbridge
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- 18-75 years of age, provide written consent, receive a diagnosis of disordered gambling, are primarily seeking treatment for disordered gambling, and speak English
Exclusion Criteria:
- Pharmacologically unmanaged psychiatric disorder that would impede counselling (e.g., psychosis), reports of neurological disorder(s), or injury resulting in a loss of consciousness greater than 10 minutes. Treatment as Usual participants will need to match CM+ participants on key measures (e.g., age, gender, education, gambling severity, substance use, psychiatric issues, comorbidities, treatment experience, ethnicity, and socio-economic status)
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Non-Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: Contingency Management
Contingency Management (CM+): This procedure is designed to reinforce treatment attendance, non-gambling behaviour, and study completion.
Participants will earn points that will be recorded on vouchers that could be subsequently redeemed for gift cards at a variety of local businesses.
Submission of evidence of gambling behaviour or non-attendance re-sets the point value for future vouchers to the starting level.
This intervention is in addition to Treatment as Usual.
|
See arm description
See arm description.
|
Active Comparator: Treatment as Usual
Treatment as Usual (TAU): This is typically a semi-structured approach for delivering cognitive behavioural therapy addressing the participant's experiences, thoughts, and emotions relating to their gambling.
|
See arm description
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
The total number of sessions that a participant provided evidence of gambling abstinence in the study.
Time Frame: up to 12-weeks
|
Gambling Abstinence
|
up to 12-weeks
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
The total number of sessions that a participant attended the study
Time Frame: up to 12-weeks
|
Session Attendance
|
up to 12-weeks
|
The total number of weeks that a participant attended the study.
Time Frame: up to 12-weeks
|
Study Retention
|
up to 12-weeks
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Darren R Christensen, PhD, University of Lethbridge
Publications and helpful links
Helpful Links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimated)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- HSRC 2015-020
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Gambling, Pathological
-
Université Catholique de LouvainCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois; Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc-... and other collaboratorsUnknownCraving | Gambling | Gambling Disorder | Gambling, Pathological | Gambling ProblemSwitzerland
-
University of WashingtonNational Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)CompletedGambling | Pathological Gambling | Problem GamblingUnited States
-
University of ChicagoCompleted
-
ITAB - Institute for Advanced Biomedical TechnologiesNot yet recruitingAccelerated rTMS in Gambling Disorder: a Multicentric, Randomized, Sham-controlled Trial (arTMSinGD)Gambling | Gambling Disorder | Gambling, Pathological | Gambling Problem
-
Finnish Institute for Health and WelfareUnknownNaloxone | Gambling Disorder | Opioid Antagonist | Pathological GamblingFinland
-
University of California, San FranciscoNational Center for Responsible GamingCompletedPathological Gambling
-
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfCompletedGambling, PathologicalGermany
-
University of IowaForest Laboratories; University of NebraskaCompletedPathological Gambling
-
University of IowaNational Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)Completed
-
Kurihama Medical and Addiction CenterUnknownPathological GamblingJapan
Clinical Trials on Treatment as Usual
-
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfCompletedPerioperative AnxietyGermany
-
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustCompletedAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderUnited Kingdom
-
McMaster UniversityNot yet recruiting
-
Gaia AGRecruitingType 2 DiabetesGermany
-
Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthCompleted
-
King's College LondonUnknown
-
University Hospital, AkershusUniversity of OsloActive, not recruiting
-
University of IndianapolisUniversity of Missouri, Kansas City; Missouri State UniversityCompletedHypertension | Diabete Type 2United States
-
Universitat Jaume IConsorcio Hospitalario Provincial de CastellónCompletedDepression | AnxietySpain
-
Kuopio University HospitalUniversity of Oslo; University of Eastern Finland; City of KuopioRecruiting