A Within-Subject Pilot Feasibility Study of a Gambling Specific SBIRT Intervention Delivered in an Urban HIV/Primary Clinic

• Published in: Journal of gambling studies Vol. 38; no. 2; pp. 545 - 558
• Main Authors: Heinlein, Emily, Rugle, Lori, Potts, Wendy, Welsh, Chris, Himelhoch, Seth
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.06.2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: African Americans; Brief interventions; Clinical trials; Community and Environmental Psychology; Economics; Efficacy; Evidence-based medicine; Feasibility; Feasibility studies; Gambling; HIV; Human immunodeficiency virus; Intervention; Medical screening; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Money; Original Paper; Primary care; Psychiatry; Sociology; Gambling disorder; Brief biosocial gambling screen; Gambling behavior; HIV
• ISSN: 1573-3602; 1573-3602
• DOI: 10.1007/s10899-021-10031-4

Background Although there are few interventions available to provide screening and brief intervention targeted toward problematic gambling, Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based intervention that has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing gambling behaviors. Methods The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary outcomes of a gambling specific SBIRT intervention in a medical setting. Fifteen participants were recruited from an urban HIV/Primary Care clinic to receive the gambling specific SBIRT intervention delivered by 3 clinicians. Process and gambling specific outcome measures were evaluated at baseline, immediately after the intervention and at 1-month follow-up. Results On average, patient participants were 49 years and self-described themselves as male (60%) and Black or African American (86.7%). Three (20%) participants met 4 or more criteria of the DSM-5 gambling disorder. Compared to baseline, those who participated in the intervention decreased both the median number of days gambled (1 days vs. 0 days), as well as the median money gambled at 1-month follow-up ($7 vs. $1). Participants with 4 or more criteria of DSM-5 gambling had the greatest reduction (days gambled: (26 days vs. 21 days); money spent: (($400 vs. $65)). Participants reported that the intervention was acceptable. Clinician participants found the intervention to be easy to deliver. Conclusions A gambling specific SBIRT intervention was feasible to deliver and acceptable to participants. Gambling specific outcome measures were reduced at 1-month follow-up. A randomized control trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is a recommended next step.