Abstract
Internet-delivered intervention may be an acceptable alternative for the more than 90% of problem gamblers who are reluctant to seek face-to-face support. Thus, we aimed to (1) develop a low-dropout unguided intervention named GAMBOT integrated with a messaging app; and (2) investigate its effect. The present study was a randomised, quadruple-blind, controlled trial. We set pre-to-post change in the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) as the primary outcome and pre-to-post change in the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS) as a secondary outcome. Daily monitoring, personalised feedback, and private messages based on cognitive behavioural theory were offered to participants in the intervention group through a messaging app for 28 days (GAMBOT). Participants in the control group received biweekly messages only for assessments for 28 days (assessments only). A total of 197 problem gamblers were included in the primary analysis. We failed to demonstrate a significant between-group difference in the primary outcome (PGSI − 1.14, 95% CI − 2.75 to 0.47, p = 0.162) but in the secondary outcome (G-SAS − 3.14, 95% CI − 0.24 to − 6.04, p = 0.03). Only 6.7% of the participants dropped out during follow-up and 77% of the GAMBOT group participants (74/96) continued to participate in the intervention throughout the 28-day period. Integrating intervention into a chatbot feature on a frequently used messaging app shows promise in helping to overcome the high dropout rate of unguided internet-delivered interventions. More effective and sophisticated contents delivered by a chatbot should be sought to engage over 90% of problem gamblers who are reluctant to seek face-to-face support.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Browne, M., Greer, N., Rawat, V., & Rockloff, M. (2017). A population-level metric for gambling-related harm. International Gambling Studies, 17(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2017.1304973.
Calado, F., & Griffiths, M. D. (2016). Problem gambling worldwide: An update and systematic review of empirical research (2000–2015). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(4), 592–613. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.073.
Casey, L. M., Oei, T. P. S., Raylu, N., Horrigan, K., Day, J., Ireland, M., et al. (2017). Internet-based delivery of cognitive behaviour therapy compared to monitoring, feedback and support for Problem Gambling: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(3), 993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9666-y.
Cunningham, J. A., Hodgins, D. C., Toneatto, T., Rai, A., & Cordingley, J. (2009). Pilot study of a personalised feedback intervention for problem gamblers. Behavior Therapy, 40(3), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.06.005.
Eysenbach, G., & Group, C. E. (2011). CONSORT-EHEALTH: Improving and standardising evaluation reports of web-based and mobile health interventions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e126.
Ferris, J. A., & Wynne, H. J. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): A randomised controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), e19.
Furukawa, T. A., Noma, H., Caldwell, D. M., Honyashiki, M., Shinohara, K., Imai, H., et al. (2014). Waiting list may be a nocebo condition in psychotherapy trials: A contribution from network meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 130(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12275.
Goslar, M., Leibetseder, M., Muench, H. M., Hofmann, S. G., & Laireiter, A. R. (2017). Efficacy of face-to-face versus self-guided treatments for disordered gambling: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(2), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.034.
Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., et al. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.
Kim, S. W., Grant, J. E., Potenza, M. N., Blanco, C., & Hollander, E. (2009). The Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS): A reliability and validity study. Psychiatry Research, 166(1), 76–84.
LaBrie, R. A., Peller, A. J., LaPlante, D. A., Bernhard, B., Harper, A., Schrier, T., et al. (2012). A brief self-help toolkit intervention for gambling problems: A randomized multisite trial. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01157.x.
Lorains, F. K., Cowlishaw, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2011). Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: Systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addiction, 106(3), 490–498.
Martens, M. P., Arterberry, B. J., Takamatsu, S. K., Masters, J., & Dude, K. (2015). The efficacy of a personalised feedback-only intervention for at-risk college gamblers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(3), 494–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038843.
Melville, K. M., Casey, L. M., & Kavanagh, D. J. (2010). Dropout from internet-based treatment for psychological disorders. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(Pt 4), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466509X472138.
Petry, N. M., Rash, C. J., & Alessi, S. M. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of brief interventions for problem gambling in substance abuse treatment patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(10), 874–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000127.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 46–55.
Riper, H., Blankers, M., Hadiwijaya, H., Cunningham, J., Clarke, S., Wiers, R., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of guided and unguided low-intensity internet interventions for adult alcohol misuse: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099912.
Seth, S., Scott, D., Svihel, C., & Murphy-Shigematsu, S. (2016). Solving the mystery of consistent negative/low Net Promoter Score (NPS) in cross-cultural marketing research. Asia Marketing Journal, 17(4), 43–61.
Slutske, W. S., Blaszczynski, A., & Martin, N. G. (2009). Sex differences in the rates of recovery, treatment-seeking, and natural recovery in pathological gambling: Results from an Australian community-based twin survey. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12(5), 425–432.
So, R., Matsushita, S., Kishimoto, S., & Furukawa, T. A. (2019). Development and validation of the Japanese version of the problem gambling severity index. Addictive Behaviors, 8, 49.
Suurvali, H., Cordingley, J., Hodgins, D. C., & Cunningham, J. (2009). Barriers to seeking help for gambling problems: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(3), 407–424.
Svensson, J., Romild, U., & Shepherdson, E. (2013). The concerned significant others of people with gambling problems in a national representative sample in Sweden—a 1 year follow-up study. BMC Public Health, 13, 1087. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1087.
Yakovenko, I., & Hodgins, D. C. (2016). Latest developments in treatment for disordered gambling: Review and critical evaluation of outcome studies. Current Addiction Reports, 3(3), 299–306.
Yokomitsu, K., & Kamimura, E. (2019). Factor structure and validation of the Japanese version of the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS-J). Journal of Gambling Issues. https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2019.41.1.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank E. Kamimura and K. Yokomitsu for providing the Japanese version of G-SAS with us. We also thank R. Fujioka and A. Muraida for helping coordination of the present study.
Funding
This trial was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED). AMED had no role in any process of the study from development of the intervention to writing the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SH is the principal investigator and is responsible for the study process. SH, RS, TAF, and TB developed the study protocol. RS, SM, TM, SF, HO, and SH contributed to developing the intervention. RS designed the system for randomization and the data collection system. TAF performed the statistical analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes. RS aggregated the usage data. SH, RS, and TAF drafted the manuscript. SM and SH acquired the funding. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
RS, SM, TM, SF, HO, and SH had been involved in the development of the workbook for face-to-face group CBT for Gambling Disorder on which the content of GAMBOT was based. GAMBOT was mainly developed by RS referring to the workbook. Both the workbook and GAMBOT were developed not for business but for academic interest. RS has received personal fees from Igaku-shoin Co., Ltd., Kagaku-hyoronsha Co., Ltd., Medical Review Co., Ltd., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and CureApp Inc. outside the submitted work. TAF reports personal fees from Meiji, grants and personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work; TAF has a patent 2018-177688 pending. SH, TM, SF, HO, and TB declared no conflict of interest. The authors have received national funding from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
So, R., Furukawa, T.A., Matsushita, S. et al. Unguided Chatbot-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Intervention for Problem Gamblers Through Messaging App: A Randomised Controlled Trial. J Gambl Stud 36, 1391–1407 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09935-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09935-4