Completed

Indicated Prevention With At-Risk Gamblers

0 criteria met from your profileSee at a glance how your profile meets each eligibility criteria.
What is being tested

Personalized Feedback Intervention

+ Cognitive Behavioral Intervention
Behavioral
Who is being recruted

Mental Disorders

+ Gambling
+ Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders
From 17 to 24 Years
See all eligibility criteria
How is the trial designed

Prevention Study

Phase 2
Interventional
Study Start: July 2003
See protocol details

Summary

Principal SponsorUniversity of Washington
Last updated: January 14, 2026
Sourced from a government-validated database.Claim as a partner
Study start date: July 1, 2003Actual date on which the first participant was enrolled.

Participants in this study will be randomly assigned to a personal feedback intervention (PFI) or assessment only for 3 years. The PFI intervention will be delivered in a single session. Measures will include the NORC DSM Screen for Problem Gambling (NODS), the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), Gambling Quantity and Perceived Norms, Perceived Injunctive Gambling Norms, Gambling Problems Index, gambling frequency, attitudes and beliefs about gambling and self-control, readiness to change, gambling expectancies, gambling motives, gambling risk perception, psychiatric symptoms, assertiveness, coping skills, substance use, alcohol-related problems, self-determination, and social desirability.

Official TitleIndicated Prevention With At-Risk Gamblers 
NCT00078273
Principal SponsorUniversity of Washington
Last updated: January 14, 2026
Sourced from a government-validated database.Claim as a partner

Protocol

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.
Design Details
225 patients to be enrolledTotal number of participants that the clinical trial aims to recruit.
Prevention Study
Prevention studies aim to stop a disease from developing. They often involve people at risk and test things like vaccines, lifestyle changes, or preventive medications.

How participants are assigned to different groups/arms
In this clinical study, participants are placed into groups randomly, like flipping a coin. This ensures that the study is fair and unbiased, making the results more reliable. By assigning participants by chance, researchers can better compare treatments without external influences.

Other Ways to Assign Participants
Non-randomized allocation: Participants are assigned based on specific factors, such as their medical condition or a doctor's decision.
None (Single-arm trial): If the study has only one group, all participants receive the same treatment, and no allocation is needed.

How treatments are given to participants
Participants are divided into different groups, each receiving a specific treatment at the same time. This helps researchers compare how well different treatments work against each other.

Other Ways to Assign Treatments
Single-group assignment: Everyone gets the same treatment.
Cross-over assignment: Participants switch between treatments during the study.
Factorial assignment: Participants receive different combinations of treatments.
Sequential assignment: Participants receive treatments one after another in a specific order, possibly based on individual responses.
Other assignment: Treatment assignment does not follow a standard or predefined design.

How the effectiveness of the treatment is controlled
In a non placebo-controlled study, no participants receive an inert substance (placebo) to compare outcomes. Instead, all participants receive either the experimental treatment or an alternative treatment (often the Standard of Care). This method allows researchers to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of a different active intervention, rather than a placebo.

Other Options
Placebo-Controlled: A placebo is used to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of an inert substance, isolating the true treatment effect.

How the interventions assigned to participants is kept confidential
Everyone involved in the study knows which treatment is being given. This is typically used when it's not possible or necessary to hide the treatment details from participants or researchers.

Other Ways to Mask Information
Single-blind: Participants do not know which treatment they are receiving, but researchers do.
Double-blind: Neither participants nor researchers know which treatment is given.
Triple-blind: Participants, researchers, and outcome assessors do not know which treatment is given.
Quadruple-blind: Participants, researchers, outcome assessors, and care providers all do not know which treatment is given.

Eligibility

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria: person's general health condition or prior treatments.
Conditions
Criteria
Any sexBiological sex of participants that are eligible to enroll.
From 17 to 24 YearsRange of ages for which participants are eligible to join.
Healthy volunteers not allowedIf individuals who are healthy and do not have the condition being studied can participate.
Conditions
Pathology
Mental Disorders
Gambling
Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria: * College student * South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) score greater than 3 Exclusion Criteria: * None, other than not meeting inclusion criteria

Study Plan

Find out more about all the medication administered in this study, their detailed description and what they involve.
Treatment Groups
Study Objectives
2 intervention groups 

are designated in this study

This study does not include a placebo group 

Treatment Groups
Group I
Experimental
See Intervention Description

Sessions lasted for 60-90 minutes and used Motivational Interviewing (MI) to facilitate discussion of feedback from participants' survey responses. Sessions began with open-ended questions about contextual factors associated with participants' gambling, then review of each feedback section: gambling pattern; perceived gambling norms; positive expectancies and negative consequences of gambling; beliefs about control over gambling; and situational self-efficacy to avoid gambling. Participants were encouraged to consider the feedback in light of their personal goals. All participants received a copy of their feedback, a list of skills for limiting gambling and a resource/referral list.
Group II
Experimental
See Intervention Description

Participants completed either six weekly 1-hour sessions or attend four sessions containing the same content. Sessions covered functional analysis and gambling triggers; challenging cognitive distortions, with emphasis on illusions of control; coping with triggers; assertiveness; and relapse prevention. Participants received a pamphlet covering each week's topic (which was reviewed with the participant if a session was missed), as well as homework sheets and gambling diaries. CBI participants were asked to refrain from gambling for the duration of the group to provide an opportunity to practice and develop skills applicable to gambling and other behavior change situations.
Study Objectives
Primary Objectives

The 20-item South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) measures gambling involvement and problem severity based on DSM-III-R pathological gambling criteria.

The gambling quantity and perceived norms scale (GQPN) includes a six-item expenditure subscale assessing amount of money won/lost through gambling on a 10-point scale from $0 to more than $2000 over time-periods from the past month to past year. Additional items assess gambling frequency (on a 10-point scale from never to every day in the past year), disposable income (on an 11-point scale from less than $50 to more than $500 per month) and perceptions of gambling frequency and expenditure for the typical college student (perceived norms). Gambling expenditure was calculated as the expenditure subscale mean residualized on disposable income.

The SOGS was modified to assess internet gambling frequency and expand gambling frequency response options from a three- to a five-point scale with anchors of no times, one to 10 times, more than 10 times, less than weekly, weekly or more than weekly but less than daily, and daily. This modified frequency scale has been shown to correlate highly with other measures of gambling frequency.

Gambling problems (or negative consequences) were assessed using the 20-item Gambling Problems Index (GPI). Participants indicated how often, from never to more than 10 times in the past 6 months, they experienced consequences while, or as a result of, gambling.

DSM-IV \[1\] criteria for pathological gambling were assessed using the 17-item National Opinion Research Center DSM-IV Screen (NODS). Some criteria have multiple items, but possible scores range from 0-10 DSM-IV criteria endorsed in the past 6 months.
Secondary Objectives

Illusions of control were assessed via a six-item subscale from the Beliefs About Control Scale (BACS), on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Study Centers

These are the hospitals, clinics, or research facilities where the trial is being conducted. You can find the location closest to you and its status.
This study has 1 location
Suspended
University of Washington; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesSeattle, United StatesSee the location
CompletedOne Study Center
;