Comorbid addictive behaviors in disordered gamblers with psychosis

Moderating effect of alexithymia between problem gambling and psychotic experiences in university students

BACKGROUND

Most of the young individuals with problem gambling (PG) or psychotic experiences (PEs) are less prone to seek medical help. Therefore, community-based studies investigating the relationship between these entities in non-clinical young people across a continuum of severity are warranted. To this end, the present study proposes to advance knowledge on the mechanisms that potentially underlie the association between PG and PEs, by examining the role of a potential moderator, i.e. alexithymia, in this relationship.

METHODS

A total of 399 participants enrolled in this study (mean age = 21.58 ± 3.20 years) participated in an online cross-sectional survey. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief (PQ-B), and the Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20) were used.

RESULTS

Thirty-three (8.3%) participants had problem-gambling, whereas 13 (3.3%) were probable pathological gamblers. Moderation analysis results adjusted over confounders (age, household crowding index, marital status, personal history of mental disorder, other illegal drug use) showed that the interaction PG by alexithymia (p = .018) was significantly associated with PEs scores. At moderate (Beta = 1.93) and high (Beta = 3.38) levels of alexithymia, more PG was significantly associated with more PEs scores.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that GP may have a different impact on PEs depending on the individual's level of alexithymia. As such, both alexithymia and gambling behavior should be considered in the clinical assessment of young people who present with PEs, which can help in implementing more tailored and individualized treatment plans.

The prevalence and features of schizophrenia among individuals with gambling disorder

BACKGROUND-OBJECTIVES

Few studies have analyzed the comorbid presence of gambling disorder (GD) with schizophrenia, its sociodemographic correlates and clinical implications. This study estimated the prevalence of the dual diagnosis (GD with schizophrenia) and the differences in the profiles of patients with and without the dual condition.

METHOD

The sample included n = 3,754 patients consecutively accepted for treatment for GD. Sociodemographics, gambling-related variables, psychopathological state and personality traits were assessed and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The prevalence of schizophrenia within patients who met clinical criteria for GD was 4.4% (95% confidence interval: 3.8%-5.1%). Variables related to the dual presence of GD with schizophrenia were single marital status, lower education level, inactive working status, socioeconomic disadvantage, younger age, earlier onset of gambling problems, worse global psychopathological state and more dysfunctional personality profile (higher level in harm avoidance and lower level in cooperativeness, reward dependence, persistence and self-directedness).

CONCLUSION

The presence of schizophrenia among patients with GD was around 4 times higher than the prevalence rate estimated in the reference general population. The differences in the profiles of GD patients with and without schizophrenia suggest that individuals with the dual diagnosis condition require unique assessment considerations and tailored treatment interventions specifically designed for the clinical and functioning higher risk.

An Examination of Clinician Responses to Problem Gambling in Community Mental Health Services

Gambling problems commonly co-occur with other mental health problems. However, screening for problem gambling (PG) rarely takes place within mental health treatment settings. The aim of the current study was to examine the way in which mental health clinicians respond to PG issues. Participants (n = 281) were recruited from a range of mental health services in Victoria, Australia. The majority of clinicians reported that at least some of their caseload was affected by gambling problems. Clinicians displayed moderate levels of knowledge about the reciprocal impact of gambling problems and mental health but had limited knowledge of screening tools to detect PG. Whilst 77% reported that they screened for PG, only 16% did so “often” or “always” and few expressed confidence in their ability to treat PG. However, only 12.5% reported receiving previous training in PG, and those that had, reported higher levels of knowledge about gambling in the context of mental illness, more positive attitudes about responding to gambling issues, and more confidence in detecting/screening for PG. In conclusion, the findings highlight the need to upskill mental health clinicians so they can better identify and manage PG and point towards opportunities for enhanced integrated working with gambling services.