Treating Gambling Addiction Based on Subtype
Pathological gambling has similarities to other types of addictions. Those who become immersed in gambling often find that social and family ties are damaged and academic and professional advancement is impaired. As a result, there are treatment programs designed specifically for treating the behaviors related to problematic gambling.
One challenge facing healthcare professionals who implement treatment programs is the complex variation between patients in their motivation to gamble. Because the underlying reasons for the gambling addiction are different with each patient, each patient requires individual treatment plans.
A study conducted by researchers at Wayne State University highlighted the complex nature of treating gambling addictions. Among the two million adults in the United States that are reported as pathological gambling (according to the National Council on Problem Gambling, an additional four to six million people are problem gamblers), there are several different types of gamblers.
Led by David M. Ledgerwood, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at Wayne State University, the researchers designated three different subtypes of serious gambling problems. Emotionally vulnerable gamblers are characterized by higher psychiatric and gambling severity. This type of gambler was also more likely to have a parent with a history of psychiatric problems.
Another subtype, behaviorally conditioned gamblers, are enticed into gambling problems with the thrill of reward associated with playing, as opposed to feeding an emotional need. The third type, antisocial impulsive gamblers, was more likely to have elevated gambling and psychiatry severity than behaviorally conditioned gamblers. This type of gambler was most likely to meet criteria for an antisocial personality disorder, a history of substance abuse or to have a parent with a history of these types of problems.
The researchers found that despite the different levels of severity in gambling problems among the subjects throughout the treatment program and during follow-up, there was no distinct treatment pattern noted between the gambling types.
The patterns of recovery reveal that identifying subtypes of gambling addictions does not predict treatment outcomes outside of an association with a gambling addict’s level of gambling severity.
The findings of the study reinforce the necessity of treating gambling addiction with specific treatment programs based on individual background and motivations for gambling. The researchers in the study found that gambling subtype does not recommend a particular treatment style and does not predict recovery rates.
Further research may be required to determine whether other ways of designating gambling addictions could provide a way to predict recovery outcomes. Factors such as age of initiation or history of gambling may provide clues to recovery.
