Gambling disorder and bipolar disorder can occur together, and gambling can also increase temporarily during mania or hypomania without constituting a separate gambling disorder. The central diagnostic task is to reconstruct when gambling began, how it changes across mood episodes, whether impaired control and gambling-related harm persist during periods of stable mood, and whether the person's behavior meets the independent criteria for each condition. Impulsivity by itself establishes neither diagnosis. The DSM-5 framework explicitly requires that gambling behavior not be better explained by a manic episode; a person with bipolar disorder can nevertheless have an additional gambling disorder when the evidence supports two clinically distinct patterns. SAMHSA DSM comparison; NICE gambling guidance; NICE bipolar guidance.
Why the distinction matters
A person experiencing mania may make unusually large bets, believe that an improbable win is virtually guaranteed, stay awake betting for days, or spend money that was intended for essential expenses. The same person may avoid gambling entirely when their mood returns to baseline. Another person may exhibit a longstanding pattern of chasing losses, concealed gambling, unsuccessful attempts to stop, and financial or family disruption during both elevated and stable mood states. A third may have an established gambling disorder that becomes more severe during mania. These histories call for different diagnostic formulations, risk assessments, and treatment priorities.
The question is clinically important because care that addresses an acute mood episode can reduce episode-related risk, while an independent gambling disorder generally needs gambling-specific intervention and practical protection from continued losses. Conversely, repeatedly labeling every period of excessive spending or gambling as an addiction can obscure a mood episode that warrants urgent psychiatric care. Both conditions can bring severe financial disruption, relationship problems, and elevated suicide risk, making assessment of immediate safety essential. NICE CG185; NICE NG248.
Clinical definitions and classification
Gambling disorder
Gambling disorder is a recognized addictive disorder involving persistent or recurrent problematic gambling that produces clinically significant distress or impairment. The DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR framework evaluates nine symptom domains within a 12-month period, with four or more required for the diagnostic threshold; domains include impaired efforts to cut back, preoccupation, gambling in response to distress, chasing losses, deception, jeopardized responsibilities or relationships, and reliance on financial rescue. Crucially, the pattern must not be better explained by a manic episode. The number of gambling sessions, total money lost, a single reckless bet, or a high screening score does not independently establish the disorder. SAMHSA DSM comparison; American Psychiatric Association.
The World Health Organization's ICD-11 recognizes gambling disorder as a disorder due to addictive behaviors. Its central features are impaired control over gambling, increasing priority given to gambling over other activities, and continuation or escalation despite negative consequences, with significant impairment. ICD-11 and DSM-5-TR are related diagnostic systems with differences in wording and operational requirements; a clinical record should state which system is being applied rather than blending them into an invented single criterion set. The ICD-11 diagnosis may be specified according to predominantly online or offline gambling. WHO addictive behavior; NICE NG248.
Bipolar disorder and mood episodes
Bipolar disorders involve recurring episodes of clinically significant changes in mood, energy, activity, and associated functioning. A manic episode includes a distinct period of elevated, expansive, or irritable mood and increased activity or energy, together with changes such as decreased need for sleep, unusually rapid speech, racing ideas, distractibility, grandiosity, and risky behavior. Mania may cause marked impairment, require hospitalization, or include psychotic features. Hypomania has similar symptom qualities at a lower level of severity, with observable change in functioning and no marked impairment or psychosis attributable to the episode. Bipolar I disorder requires a manic episode; bipolar II disorder involves hypomania and major depressive episodes without a history of full mania. NICE CG185.
Disinhibited spending, risky investments, gambling, and unusually ambitious financial plans may occur during elevated mood. Clinicians assess the entire mood syndrome and its duration and consequences. A preference for gambling, rapid decisions, or irritability alone does not qualify as mania or hypomania. Sleeping little because a person stayed online all night and feeling exhausted the next day differs from the decreased need for sleep characteristic of elevated mood. A dramatic gambling loss can also generate distress and agitation without establishing a bipolar episode.
Can both disorders be diagnosed?
Yes. The diagnostic exclusion concerns gambling behavior that is better explained by mania; it does not impose a blanket prohibition on comorbidity. Evidence for a separate gambling disorder becomes stronger when clinically significant gambling problems precede the first mood episode, continue between episodes, or recur during sustained euthymia (a period of relatively stable mood). Evidence for episode-limited risky gambling becomes stronger when the behavior begins abruptly with other clear manic signs and subsides as that episode resolves. Sometimes only follow-up and a longitudinal history can resolve the question. SAMHSA; Varo et al..
Differential diagnosis: gambling during mania versus persistent gambling disorder
Temporal relationship to mood
The most useful organizing principle is a timeline. Document gambling behavior before, during, and after every suspected manic, hypomanic, mixed-feature, and depressive period. The clinician asks whether increases in betting coincide with changes in sleep, speech, energy, confidence, sociability, activity, and judgment; whether the person gambles at comparable levels when mood is stable; and whether compulsive urges, loss chasing, secrecy, and consequences persist independently of an elevated mood episode.
An onset that tracks mania may support a mood-driven explanation, but temporal overlap is not sufficient by itself. A person with an existing gambling disorder may gamble even more during mania, and subsequent losses may worsen sleep, anxiety, or depression. Historical medical records, bank statements shared with consent, gambling-account transaction histories, and collateral accounts from trusted relatives can clarify patterns when memory is incomplete. NICE CG185; NICE NG248.
Motivation, beliefs, and perceived control
During mania, a person may bet because of expansive confidence, grandiose ideas about their financial destiny, accelerated plans, or generalized pursuit of multiple high-risk activities. The gambling is often part of a broader syndrome that may also include spending sprees, excessive business commitments, sexual disinhibition, or unusually ambitious projects. In gambling disorder, the immediate mechanisms more commonly include anticipation of reward, relief from distress, preoccupation with betting, distorted beliefs about chance, and the attempt to recover past losses. These processes can coexist and reinforce each other.
A claim of special predictive ability has multiple potential meanings. The gambler's fallacy or illusion of control may reflect common gambling-related cognitive distortion; an expansive, fixed belief accompanied by markedly altered sleep, energy, activity, and other mood symptoms may be embedded within mania; a psychotic delusion may require its own assessment. One isolated statement about luck cannot settle the diagnosis. NICE NG248; NICE CG185.
Continuation despite harm
The continuation of gambling after accumulating debt, relationship strain, or work impairment can support a gambling-disorder formulation, especially when present across mood states and accompanied by unsuccessful efforts to stop. Yet mania can temporarily reduce insight and produce severe adverse consequences even during a brief time window. An acute manic episode may involve multiple harmful decisions, not all of which constitute independent addictive disorders. The strongest diagnosis integrates symptom domains, duration, context, and a coherent account of the person's baseline functioning.
Three illustrative trajectories
Trajectory A: An adult with no previous gambling history develops greatly reduced need for sleep, pressured speech, expansive grandiose plans, and very high sports betting during a distinct manic episode. The gambling ends after the episode resolves and does not recur during follow-up. This pattern raises the possibility of gambling as part of mania, subject to full assessment.
Trajectory B: An adult has concealed betting, repeated failed attempts to quit, loss chasing, and financial crises throughout several years of stable mood. They later experience an episode of mania with additional impulsive wagers. This history raises the possibility of two co-occurring disorders, each needing specific care.
Trajectory C: An adult begins gambling heavily during hypomania, continues chasing losses through a subsequent depressive period, and shows persistent gambling preoccupation and impaired control after the mood episode ends. The longitudinal picture may evolve; clinicians should reassess gambling-disorder criteria over time rather than presuming either a transient episode effect or permanent addiction from the first consultation.
These are hypothetical teaching examples, not diagnostic algorithms. The same visible behavior may have different clinical explanations, and the examples cannot substitute for assessment.
The role of impulsivity and executive functioning
Impulsivity is multidimensional. It can refer to acting rapidly without sufficient forethought, struggling to delay a reward, making decisions under strong emotional arousal, or failing to inhibit a learned response. Individuals with bipolar disorder may experience state-dependent disinhibition during mania and, in some studies, trait-like difficulties in particular cognitive domains outside acute episodes. Individuals with gambling disorder may show elevated urgency, impulsive choice, and altered responses to reward or loss. Group-level findings have overlapping distributions and therefore cannot diagnose an individual. Varo et al..
Executive functions include planning, attention regulation, flexible switching, working memory, and inhibitory control. A person's ability to evaluate probabilities or remain consistent with financial limits may deteriorate when they are sleep deprived, intoxicated, experiencing acute mania, or intensely distressed. Neuropsychological tests can characterize aspects of performance, but no single inhibition, delay-discounting, or gambling task distinguishes bipolar-related gambling from gambling disorder with clinically sufficient specificity. The longitudinal clinical interview remains decisive.
Reward learning and reinforcement
Gambling products pair uncertainty with intermittently delivered rewards. Variable reward schedules can sustain repeated betting, while near-miss outcomes, salient cues, and the prospect of reversing losses may alter attention and expectations. During mania, heightened reward pursuit and elevated confidence can amplify exposure to these contingencies. In a persistent gambling disorder, cue-triggered urges and reinforcement may outlast any acute mood episode. This conceptual integration is plausible and consistent with addiction models; evidence has not established one biomarker or one causal neural pathway specific to the comorbid presentation.
Emotion regulation and negative mood
Some people gamble to modify unpleasant emotional states, distract themselves from problems, or create excitement when they feel flat or distressed. Bipolar depression can add hopelessness, low energy, or shame following financial losses. Gambling may then shift from excitement-seeking during an elevated episode to escape-oriented behavior during depression or euthymia. That change matters clinically because risk can persist after mania settles, even when the motivations for gambling change. Correlations between mood and gambling behaviors cannot by themselves establish which condition caused the other.
How frequently do the disorders co-occur?
Research supports an association between gambling-related conditions and bipolar-spectrum illness, although a single universal prevalence estimate would be misleading. Varo and colleagues' systematic review included 28 studies of behavioral addictions in bipolar disorders; it found recurrent evidence of overlap, substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic definitions and samples, and very limited randomized treatment evidence for comorbidity. The paper examined several behaviors, not gambling alone, so estimates pooled across 'behavioral addictions' should never be presented as gambling-specific prevalence. Varo et al. (2019).
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 eligible adult population-based studies found that any psychiatric condition was common among people identified with gambling disorder, with weighted estimates of approximately 82.2% for any mental disorder and 30.9% for mood disorders as a group. The mood-disorder figure includes diagnoses beyond bipolar disorder. It therefore cannot be read as a bipolar prevalence estimate. Moreover, methodological heterogeneity, older diagnostic frameworks in many included studies, and ascertainment differences restrict generalization to individual patients or particular countries. Galeazzi, Marchi, and Castagnini (2025).
Cross-sectional comorbidity establishes coexistence, not a causal direction. Possible explanations include overlapping vulnerability, shared exposure to impulsive decision-making settings, medication effects, sleep disruption, substance use, socioeconomic stress, and reciprocal worsening of psychiatric symptoms and gambling harms. Longitudinal studies with repeated mood-state and gambling measurements are needed to disentangle onset, persistence, and pathways of risk. Clinical estimates also differ depending on whether studies include bipolar I, bipolar II, all mood disorders, gambling-disorder diagnoses, or screening-defined problem gambling.
Clinical assessment: a structured longitudinal approach
Step 1: Address safety and current mood state
The first encounter should establish whether there is an acute manic or mixed presentation, psychosis, severe depression, suicidal thinking, dangerous spending, exploitation, loss of housing, inability to meet basic needs, or other immediate danger. Family or trusted support persons can contribute when appropriate and with attention to confidentiality. Risk assessments should consider access to money and credit, recent gambling losses, and the person's current capacity to follow a safety plan. If mania substantially impairs judgment or safety, urgent psychiatric evaluation may be necessary before detailed addiction-focused work can proceed. NICE CG185; NICE NG248.
Step 2: Reconstruct mood episodes
Ask about periods of unusually elevated or irritable mood with increased energy, shifts in sleep need, talkativeness, racing thoughts, grandiosity, acceleration in goal-directed behavior, psychosis, hospitalization, and observable change from baseline. Establish onset, episode duration, episode severity, medication and substance exposures, previous depressive episodes, and interepisode functioning. Structured interviews and established rating scales can support the assessment, but a rating scale cannot replace the clinical criteria for mania or hypomania. NICE CG185.
Step 3: Reconstruct gambling episodes and harms
Build a chronological account of the first bet, changes in frequency and stakes, online and offline products, account access, borrowed money, loss chasing, secretive behavior, urges, failed limits, distress, sleep disruption, and functional consequences. Ask about wagers during stable mood as well as depressive or elevated periods. Financial totals may be useful for safety planning, but shame, hidden accounts, irregular income, and memory gaps can distort self-report. The focus remains on clinical impairment, patterns of control, and consequences rather than an arbitrary dollar threshold. NICE NG248.
Step 4: Assess independent symptom clusters
For gambling disorder, examine the nine DSM symptom domains across the applicable period and the manic-episode exclusion. For bipolar disorder, establish qualifying mood episodes through psychiatric history and differential diagnosis. Ask whether there are sufficiently documented gambling-disorder symptoms during euthymia or before the bipolar illness emerged, and whether elevated mood episodes occurred in the absence of gambling. It is entirely possible for one diagnosis to be certain while the other remains provisional pending collateral history or longitudinal follow-up.
Step 5: Review screening tools without confusing them with diagnoses
The Problem Gambling Severity Index and South Oaks Gambling Screen can identify risk and prompt more detailed assessment. Their scores depend on the instrument's time frame, wording, sampling context, and thresholds; they do not apply the DSM manic-episode exclusion by themselves. Bipolar screening questionnaires can generate false positives when general impulsivity, sleep loss, anxiety, or substance effects are misread as mood episodes. A careful interview integrates the actual symptoms and time sequence. NICE NG248; NICE CG185.
Step 6: Examine comorbidity and other explanations
Alcohol, stimulants, other substances, ADHD, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, personality patterns, and physical conditions can complicate mood and gambling assessment. In particular, medication-induced disinhibition and a substance-related elevated mood require active consideration. A clinical formulation must avoid reducing all impulsive behavior to an assumed bipolar diagnosis or making a gambling-disorder diagnosis solely because serious losses occurred. NICE CG185.
Medication-related gambling and the aripiprazole warning
A medication review is important, particularly when gambling urges began or intensified after starting or changing a dopamine-active drug. The US Food and Drug Administration has warned that aripiprazole can be associated with new impulse-control problems, including compulsive gambling, and has advised clinicians to ask about changes in urges. Dopamine agonists used for some neurological conditions are another relevant exposure. These effects may complicate the assessment of a person treated for bipolar disorder or another psychiatric condition. FDA; NICE NG248.
When gambling begins after a medication change, the timing, other manic features, prior gambling history, and improvement after a clinician-supervised adjustment all matter. Spontaneous adverse-event reports can reveal a safety signal without proving incidence or causality for an individual. People should not abruptly stop prescribed mood-stabilizing or antipsychotic medication on their own; medication changes require a prescribing clinician who can weigh relapse risk against adverse effects.
Treatment when gambling disorder and bipolar disorder coexist
Stabilizing acute mania and protecting immediate safety
If a person is experiencing clinically significant mania, the immediate priorities usually include psychiatric assessment, managing the mood episode according to established bipolar guidance, protecting sleep and essential resources, and addressing potential psychosis or dangerous decisions. Treatment may involve medication, crisis services, structured follow-up, and involvement of trusted support people as appropriate. Specific prescriptions depend on clinical history, physical health, previous treatment response, reproductive safety, and local professional guidance. Gambling behavior may diminish with mood stabilization when it was predominantly part of the episode, but follow-up is necessary to see whether a separate gambling problem remains. NICE CG185.
Gambling-specific cognitive behavioral therapy
For persistent gambling disorder, gambling-focused cognitive behavioral therapy addresses distorted beliefs about chance and control, urges, cue exposure and response patterns, emotion regulation, alternative rewarding activities, and relapse prevention. NICE's 2025 guidance recommends group CBT to reduce gambling severity and frequency and individual CBT when a group is unsuitable or unavailable. A Cochrane review found short-term benefits from CBT trials, with greater uncertainty about durability and study quality. These findings support CBT as an important component of care while leaving treatment of people with both diagnoses less directly studied. NICE NG248; Cowlishaw et al. (2022).
In comorbid care, therapy can explicitly identify both gambling triggers and early indicators of mood relapse. Examples include betting immediately after multiple nights of reduced sleep, responding to expansive financial ideas, resuming sports betting under stress, or attempting to chase losses after an interpersonal conflict. Clinicians may adapt session timing and cognitive demands when mood symptoms are acute. This integrated approach is clinically reasonable, but trials specifically demonstrating superior outcomes in bipolar–gambling comorbidity remain limited. Varo et al. (2019).
Motivational interventions and collaborative planning
Motivational interviewing may help people who are uncertain about seeking help or ambivalent about giving up gambling. Collaborative decisions can define concrete goals such as stopping wagering, reducing access to gambling applications, disclosing debts to an appropriate financial adviser, or choosing a safe person to contact during a rise in betting urges. Evidence for motivational approaches is more limited than for CBT, and they should be placed within a broader clinical plan when there is serious harm or bipolar instability. NICE NG248; Cochrane.
Medication for gambling disorder
No medicine should be assumed to treat both conditions simply because it is prescribed for one. NICE advises considering specialist-supervised naltrexone in certain adults whose gambling has not improved adequately with psychological therapy or who have repeated relapses; the guideline describes this as an off-label use in its jurisdiction. Evidence for gambling outcomes is limited, and interactions, liver health, opioid use, and other medical considerations require professional evaluation. Mood-stabilizing medications are selected for bipolar indications, while any gambling-related benefit must be evaluated separately rather than generalized from a diagnosis or a small study. NICE NG248; NICE evidence review.
Financial safeguards and environmental controls
Clinical care should address the environment in which gambling occurs. Options include self-exclusion from gambling operators where available, bank gambling-payment blocks, removing betting applications, limiting credit access, reducing exposure to promotional notifications, identifying a trusted financial support person, and seeking independent debt advice. When acute mania is present, any arrangements involving access to money or legal decision-making should respect consent, capacity, applicable law, and the person's rights. Practical controls reduce the opportunity for immediate loss but are not a substitute for treating mood episodes or gambling disorder. NICE NG248.
Online sports betting, casino platforms, rapid wagering, and always-available applications can compress the time between an impulse and an irreversible transaction. Advertising, personalized prompts, and continuous access are environmental factors worth documenting without assuming that a specific platform caused a psychiatric disorder. A clinician can ask which products were used, whether gambling occurred overnight, how promotions affected spending, and whether changes in access helped during periods of mood stability.
Family support and ongoing relapse prevention
Families and partners may experience debt, broken trust, conflict, or fear that elevated mood and gambling will recur. With consent, a coordinated plan can establish warning signs, roles in responding to relapse, contact points for clinical help, and safe access to essential household funds. Care should include support for affected relatives in their own right, including when the person who gambles is not currently engaged in treatment. Gambling recovery and bipolar relapse prevention involve different but overlapping monitoring tasks: one tracks gambling urges and exposure, while the other also tracks sleep, energy, mood, activity, and treatment adherence. NICE NG248; NICE CG185.
Suicide risk, acute distress, and crisis response
Both gambling-related harm and bipolar disorder require careful assessment of self-harm and suicide risk. Financial crises, shame after losses, depression, mixed or agitated mood states, intoxication, and sudden loss of support can increase urgency. NICE specifically recommends asking people experiencing gambling harms directly about suicidal ideation and intent and creating a safety plan where risk is present. Clinicians should not assume that risk disappears when an elevated episode resolves or when gambling stops for a short period. NICE NG248; NICE CG185.
A person with current suicidal intent, psychosis, severe mania, or an inability to remain safe needs immediate local emergency or specialist crisis assessment. A practical plan includes reducing access to immediate means of self-harm, identifying people who can stay with the person or assist in seeking care, and arranging rapid clinical contact. Financial stabilization and debt advice are important but should not delay urgent assessment. Population-level associations cannot provide a reliable prediction of an individual's immediate suicide risk.
Competing explanations and research limitations
The literature uses overlapping terms—problem gambling, pathological gambling, gambling disorder, behavioral addictions, bipolar spectrum, and mood disorders—that refer to different case definitions. A screening-defined gambling problem in a community questionnaire may not meet clinical diagnostic criteria. Likewise, a broad mood-disorder category cannot be used as a synonym for bipolar I or bipolar II. Some studies pool online and offline gambling or include mixed psychiatric clinical samples, making causal and prevalence comparisons especially difficult. Galeazzi et al. (2025); Varo et al. (2019).
Other limitations include retrospective recall bias, unrecognized hypomania, fluctuating medication exposure, differing diagnostic interview procedures, selection of treatment-seeking rather than population samples, small subgroup counts, and inadequate measurement of mood state when gambling was recorded. Cross-sectional data cannot show whether gambling preceded bipolar disorder, followed it, or was increased by a third factor. Neurobiological differences observed in groups do not establish a clinical biomarker for the comorbid presentation. Randomized trials specifically for patients meeting validated criteria for both conditions remain sparse, so a coordinated treatment plan relies partly on evidence established separately for bipolar disorder and gambling disorder.
The practical research priority is repeated, prospective measurement of mood episodes, gambling behavior, medication exposure, financial consequences, and functional impairment. Studies should compare individuals whose gambling occurs only during mania with those who gamble persistently through euthymia, use validated diagnostic interviews, and follow treatment outcomes and adverse events over time. Until such evidence is stronger, the time course of symptoms and careful differential diagnosis provide the most defensible basis for care.
Frequently asked questions
Does gambling during a manic episode mean someone has gambling disorder?
No. Gambling during mania can be a manifestation of the elevated mood episode. The clinician evaluates the complete gambling-disorder criteria, the manic-episode exclusion, history outside mania, and clinically significant impairment. Financial harm deserves attention regardless of the eventual diagnosis. SAMHSA.
Can someone have bipolar disorder and gambling disorder simultaneously?
Yes. A bipolar diagnosis does not automatically rule out gambling disorder. Evidence that gambling symptoms occur independently of mania, persist during stable mood, or preceded the illness can support two diagnoses. The diagnostic formulation should be reviewed as the longitudinal history becomes clearer.
Is hypomania the same as gambling addiction?
No. Hypomania is a mood episode identified through a constellation of changes in mood, energy, sleep need, and functioning. Gambling disorder is a pattern of impaired gambling control and significant harm. Elevated spending or betting may accompany hypomania, but each diagnosis has its own criteria and time course.
Do people with bipolar disorder always show impulsive gambling?
No. Risky gambling is one possible behavior during elevated mood, and many people with bipolar disorder do not gamble problematically. Bipolar disorder cannot be inferred from a gambling pattern alone, and impulsivity is not unique to either condition.
What happens if gambling continues after mood stabilization?
Continued harmful gambling warrants a focused gambling assessment. Persistent loss chasing, unsuccessful attempts to stop, preoccupation, concealment, and impairment during euthymia may support an independent gambling-disorder diagnosis and the need for gambling-specific treatment. Mood symptoms should still be monitored alongside gambling symptoms.
Could bipolar medication cause gambling urges?
Some medications, including aripiprazole, have documented regulatory warnings about impulse-control problems such as compulsive gambling. A temporal association calls for a prompt medication review by the prescribing clinician. Do not discontinue treatment independently. FDA safety notice.
What help is appropriate when debt and mania occur together?
Urgent assessment is appropriate when manic symptoms, impaired judgment, psychosis, suicidal thinking, or inability to meet essential needs create immediate danger. Coordinated psychiatric care, financial safeguards, debt support, and gambling-specific treatment can then address both acute consequences and persistent vulnerabilities. NICE gambling guidance; NICE bipolar guidance.
Clinical synthesis
Gambling disorder and bipolar disorder are best distinguished through a longitudinal explanation of behavior and mood. The diagnostic core is whether gambling-related loss of control and impairment exist as a recognizable pattern beyond the manic episode, while the clinical core is protecting the person from immediate harm and providing treatment that matches the actual conditions present. Assessment should integrate symptoms, timelines, medication exposure, financial and social consequences, independent reports where appropriate, and repeated follow-up. Evidence supports systematic screening and treatment of both gambling harm and bipolar episodes, while the optimal sequence and combinations of interventions for confirmed dual diagnosis remain an important research gap.
Related Articles
Gambling Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment — Clinical criteria, harms, assessment, and treatments for gambling disorder.
Problem Gambling vs Gambling Disorder: Harm and Diagnostic Thresholds — The distinction between measurable harm, screening results, and formal diagnosis.
Bipolar Disorder: Symptoms, Types, Diagnosis, and Treatment — The broader clinical picture of bipolar mood episodes and treatment.
Gambling Disorder and Suicide Risk: Evidence and Safety Planning — Gambling-specific suicide-risk assessment and safety measures.
Cluster Gambling, Gaming and Behavioral Addictions — The central scientific chapter connecting gambling, gaming, and behavioral-addiction research.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). What is gambling disorder? Official APA resource.
Cowlishaw, S., Merkouris, S., Dowling, N., Anderson, C., Jackson, A., and Thomas, S. (2022). Psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD008937. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008937.pub2.
Food and Drug Administration. (2016; updated regulatory information). Aripiprazole-containing medications and impulse-control disorders. FDA safety record.
Galeazzi, G. M., Marchi, M., and Castagnini, A. C. (2025). Psychiatric morbidity and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys. European Psychiatry, 68(1), e161. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10122.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014; current guidance). Bipolar disorder: Assessment and management (CG185). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg185/chapter/recommendations.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2025). Gambling-related harms: Identification, assessment and management (NG248). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng248/chapter/recommendations.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2016). DSM-IV to DSM-5 gambling disorder comparison. In Impact of the DSM-IV to DSM-5 Changes on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Table 3.38. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t39/.
Varo, C., Murru, A., Salagre, E., Jiménez, E., Solé, B., Montejo, L., Carvalho, A. F., Stubbs, B., Grande, I., Martínez-Arán, A., Vieta, E., and Reinares, M. (2019). Behavioral addictions in bipolar disorders: A systematic review. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 29(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.10.012.
World Health Organization. (Current ICD-11 subject resources). Addictive behaviour and disorders due to addictive behaviours. https://www.who.int/health-topics/addictive-behaviour.