Gambling, PathologicalNCT02613754
Adding Contingency Management to Treatment as Usual for Disordered Gambling.
A study testing Contingency Management and Treatment as Usual in people with Gambling, Pathological, run by University of Lethbridge at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The aim of this study is to conduct a trial to investigate the efficacy of adding Contingency Management (CM) to Treatment as Usual (TAU) for the treatment of Disordered Gambling. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 75 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Gambling, Pathological
- What is being tested?
- Contingency Management and Treatment as Usual
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 45 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Mar 2015to 2 Aug 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 18-75 years of age, provide written consent, receive a diagnosis of disordered gambling, are primarily seeking treatment for disordered gambling, and speak English
Who cannot join
- 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)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Impact of Adding Contingency Management to Treatment as Usual for Disordered Gambling
The aim of this study is to conduct a trial to investigate the efficacy of adding Contingency Management (CM) to Treatment as Usual (TAU) for the treatment of Disordered Gambling. Results from this experiment will provide the first evidence of the additional efficacy of best-practice CM and whether it can be easily integrated into a clinical environment. Additionally, this study will correlate clinical outcomes with psychological measures and participant responses to develop new predictive treatment outcome measures.
Read the 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.
- Conditions
- Gambling, Pathological
- Being tested
- Contingency Management, Treatment as Usual
- Medical subject headings
- Gambling
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Contingency ManagementBehavioural
See arm description.
Treatment as UsualBehavioural
See arm description
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency Management | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Contingency Management; Behavioral: Treatment as Usual |
| Treatment as Usual | Active comparator | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Treatment as Usual |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The total number of sessions that a participant provided evidence of gambling abstinence in the study.
Gambling Abstinence
Measured: up to 12-weeks
Secondary outcomes (2)
The total number of sessions that a participant attended the study
Session Attendance
Measured: up to 12-weeks
The total number of weeks that a participant attended the study.
Study Retention
Measured: up to 12-weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Nov 2015 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2015
- Primary completion2 Aug 2023
- Study completion2 Aug 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Gambling, PathologicalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 45 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Lethbridge
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Alberta Innovates Health Solutions, Alberta Gambling Research Institute
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Darren R. Christensen, University of Lethbridge
- Investigators
- Darren R Christensen, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Lethbridge
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02613754
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HSRC 2015-020
- Status last verified
- Aug 2023
- First submitted
- 19 Nov 2015
- Last updated
- 7 Aug 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Aug 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Impact of Adding Contingency Management to Treatment as Usual for Disordered Gambling
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02613754
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HSRC 2015-020
- Conditions
- Gambling, Pathological
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 45 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LethbridgeUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Alberta Innovates Health Solutions, Alberta Gambling Research Institute
- Study start
- Mar 2015
- Primary completion
- 2 Aug 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Aug 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Nov 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study is to conduct a trial to investigate the efficacy of adding Contingency Management (CM) to Treatment as Usual (TAU) for the treatment of Disordered Gambling. Results from this experiment will provide the first evidence of the additional efficacy of best-practice CM and whether it can be easily integrated into a clinical environment. Additionally, this study will correlate clinical outcomes with psychological measures and participant responses to develop new predictive treatment outcome measures.
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 design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency Management | Experimental | Behavioral: Contingency Management, Behavioral: Treatment as UsualContingency 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. |
| Treatment as Usual | Active comparator | Behavioral: Treatment as UsualTreatment 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 18-75 years of age, provide written consent, receive a diagnosis of disordered gambling, are primarily seeking treatment for disordered gambling, and speak English
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 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)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency ManagementSee arm description. | Behavioural | Contingency Management |
| Treatment as UsualSee arm description | Behavioural | Contingency Management, Treatment as Usual |
Primary outcome
The total number of sessions that a participant provided evidence of gambling abstinence in the study.
Time frame: up to 12-weeks
Gambling Abstinence
2 secondary outcomes
The total number of sessions that a participant attended the study
Time frame: up to 12-weeks
The total number of weeks that a participant attended the study.
Time frame: up to 12-weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Aug 2023.
- Profile of Dr. ChristensenLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Gambling, Pathological
Not yet recruiting
QAIAx - SGI/SI Smart Health Cities: Microcity Enclave Program (Quantum SI/AGI Agency a/k/a AI City Hall Project - UPSTO App Nos. 64/074,526, 64/063,557, 64/105,164, 63/903,181, 63/729,428, 64/125,360; USPTO EO 9424 Assignment ID: 2101042 / ARN: REEL/FRAME: 76481/0026 - OUSD-R&E, Department of War)
Asperger's Disorder, Asperger Disorder
RecruitingPhase 2
Psilocybin AsSisted pSychotherapy for the treatmENt of Gambling disordER : a Pilot Study
Gambling Disorder
Recruiting
Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Gambling Disorder
Gambling Disorder, Gambling
RecruitingObservational study
Is Craving a Central Criterion for Diagnosing a Behavioral Addiction?
Addictive Behaviors, Internet Addiction Disorder
Not yet recruiting
COMpulsive Gambling: Efficacy of DEEP Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation With H7 COIL
Gambling Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Darren R Christensen, PhD principal investigator
University of Lethbridge
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Contingency Management and Treatment as Usual in people with Gambling, Pathological, run by University of Lethbridge at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Aug 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The total number of sessions that a participant provided evidence of gambling abstinence in the study. (time frame: up to 12-weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Aug 2023.