Brief motivational interventions for college student problem gamblers

Abstract

Compared to the assessment-only condition, those receiving any intervention had significant decreases in ASI-G scores and days and dollars wagered over time. The MET condition decreased significantly ASI-G scores and dollars wagered over time, and increased the odds of a clinically significant reduction in gambling at the 9-month follow-up relative to the assessment-only condition, even after controlling for baseline indices that could impact outcomes. The Brief Advice and MET+CBT conditions had benefits on some, but not all, indices of gambling. None of the interventions differed significantly from one another. Conclusions These results suggest the efficacy of brief interventions for reducing gambling problems in college students.