What Is Motivational Interviewing for Gambling Disorder?
Motivational interviewing (MI) is a collaborative, person-centered counseling method that helps people explore competing motivations, articulate their own reasons for change, and strengthen commitment to practical action. In gambling care, clinicians use MI when a person recognizes some costs of gambling yet remains uncertain about stopping, reducing exposure, disclosing losses, or entering treatment. The strongest contemporary rationale for MI is its role in engagement and readiness for change. Research has not established that MI alone reliably reduces gambling-disorder severity more than credible comparison conditions. The 2025 NICE guideline recommends considering MI to strengthen confidence and commitment, while recommending gambling-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to reduce gambling severity and frequency. NICE, 2025; Forman et al., 2025.
The distinction matters clinically. A person may need help deciding whether to seek treatment, a structured intervention targeting the behaviors and beliefs that sustain gambling, financial and environmental protections, and care for co-occurring psychiatric conditions. MI can contribute to this pathway without substituting for comprehensive assessment, safety management, or gambling-specific psychotherapy. A brief MI conversation is a therapeutic encounter, not a diagnostic test or proof that the person has gambling disorder.
Gambling Disorder, Gambling-Related Harm, and Treatment Ambivalence
Gambling disorder is a recognized clinical condition in the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 classification systems. Clinically important assessment examines impaired control, persistent or recurrent gambling, distress or functional consequences, and the relevant diagnostic criteria. Problem gambling and gambling-related harm refer to a wider spectrum: some individuals experience financial, relationship, occupational, and psychological consequences without meeting full diagnostic thresholds. The American Psychiatric Association describes gambling disorder as a behavioral addiction classified among non-substance-related disorders; the World Health Organization recognizes gambling disorder among disorders due to addictive behaviors. American Psychiatric Association, 2024; WHO, Addictive behaviour.
Ambivalence is often understandable within the person's circumstances. Gambling may provide excitement, temporary escape, social contact, an imagined route out of debt, or a feeling of control. At the same time, losses, secrecy, depleted savings, conflict, and increasing preoccupation can prompt concern. A person might say that gambling is destroying trust in a relationship while also believing that the next win could repair the damage. MI explores both sides of this experience and invites the person to evaluate how gambling fits with personally important goals.
Because shame and stigma often suppress disclosure and delay help-seeking, the language of a consultation influences whether accurate assessment is possible. NICE recommends an empathetic, person-centered and nonjudgmental approach and encourages discussion of fears that prevent people from accessing services. Ambivalence should therefore be explored as a subject of clinical understanding rather than treated as a character deficiency. NICE, 2025.
How Motivational Interviewing Works
Partnership, acceptance, compassion, and evocation
The MI approach is organized around partnership, respect for autonomy, compassionate attention to the person's welfare, and evocation of the person's own motivations. The clinician seeks to understand the patient's goals and choices, rather than delivering a lecture or attempting to win an argument. The person retains agency over decisions, while the clinician remains responsible for recognizing clinical risk, offering evidence-based recommendations, and communicating clearly about harm.
Evocation means inviting the person to identify personally meaningful reasons, abilities, needs, and commitments. Someone who is indifferent to abstract warnings about gambling losses might care deeply about being present with their children, ending financial secrecy, sleeping through the night, or returning to an occupation disrupted by betting. A discussion becomes clinically useful when those values connect with specific, observable next steps.
Engaging, focusing, evoking, and planning
MI commonly moves through four overlapping processes. Engaging establishes a working relationship and a sense that the person can speak candidly. Focusing selects a direction: changing gambling behavior, reviewing access to betting products, or entering structured treatment. Evoking explores the individual's own reasons for change. Planning converts emerging willingness into actions that match current needs and readiness. These processes can recur when new information, a gambling episode, or a shift in circumstances alters motivation.
In a gambling clinic, the focus may be strengthened through careful assessment of loss chasing, gambling frequency, financial exposure, high-risk situations, and the functions gambling serves. The therapist can summarize a discrepancy between important goals and current behavior while remaining attentive to the patient's interpretation. For example, someone who wants to protect a shared household may choose to limit access to gambling funds and tell a trusted person about urgent debts.
Open questions, affirmations, reflections, and summaries
Open questions invite detailed accounts rather than yes-or-no responses. Affirmations recognize existing strengths, efforts, and values. Reflections communicate an accurate understanding of meaning and emotion, sometimes highlighting a person's own emerging commitment to change. Summaries connect important concerns, reasons, and possible next steps. These are interviewing skills used within an overall collaborative approach; deploying them mechanically does not establish that a treatment session has been delivered with MI fidelity.
Clinicians listen for change talk: statements about wanting, being able, having reasons, needing, or being committed to change. They also explore sustain talk, which expresses reasons to continue gambling. Evidence about these conversational mechanisms comes substantially from the wider MI literature, often in substance-use populations; transfer to gambling disorder requires direct validation. It would overstate the evidence to assert that eliciting change talk by itself causes lasting gambling recovery.
Why Gambling Can Be Difficult to Change
Reward learning and variable outcomes
Gambling products combine intermittent rewards, uncertain outcomes, and learned associations between cues and anticipated payoffs. A person can be pulled back by the prospect of a win even after repeated losses. Gambling environments may make betting continuously accessible through smartphones, live sports markets, notifications, and rapid account deposits. These conditions help explain why personal intention can compete with powerful situational triggers.
MI addresses the subjective meaning of gambling and willingness to alter behavior. It may help a person recognize how repeated attempts to win money back conflict with stated financial goals. The learning processes, however, also support adding structured behavioral and environmental interventions rather than relying exclusively on a change of attitude.
Loss chasing, mistaken beliefs, and emotional regulation
Loss chasing occurs when someone continues or increases gambling in an attempt to recover previous losses. Illusions of control, selective memory for wins, and mistaken expectations about random events can intensify persistence. Gambling may also function as a short-term response to anxiety, depressed mood, loneliness, or agitation. These mechanisms differ between individuals and products and should be assessed rather than presumed.
A clinician using MI might ask what typically happens before and after gambling, what the person hopes it will accomplish, and how those expectations compare with recent outcomes. Specific cognitive distortions and coping behaviors can then be addressed through CBT, relapse prevention, practical barriers to betting, or treatment of co-occurring conditions. Motivation is one component of a broader behavior-change process.
Access, commercial design, and real-world constraints
Availability of online gambling, financial credit, advertising, and mobile payment methods can make betting faster and harder to interrupt. Debts, shame, social isolation, and relationship conflict can then complicate treatment attendance. Some people lack safe disclosure options or live with others whose betting behavior increases exposure. Counseling plans must therefore consider environment and resources as well as personal choice.
MI should not relocate the entire explanation for gambling harm onto an individual's motivation. Protection may require self-exclusion, financial limits, blocking tools, involvement of supportive others where appropriate, and specialist debt advice. NICE includes practical self-exclusion and access protections in its recommendations for initial support and risk management. NICE, 2025.
What the Scientific Evidence Actually Shows
Early trials found promising results in selected samples
An early randomized study and 24-month follow-up examined a motivational telephone intervention combined with a self-help workbook. In the follow-up sample of 67 participants, those receiving the motivational call and workbook reported fewer gambling days, smaller financial losses, and lower screening scores than those receiving only the workbook, although the groups did not differ on the reported six-month abstinence outcome. The result supported further investigation of brief motivational support but did not establish that MI alone produced all observed benefits. Hodgins et al., 2004.
Diskin and Hodgins randomly assigned 81 concerned gamblers to a single MI session or a control interview. At 12 months, the MI group reported fewer gambling days, lower expenditure, and less distress. The study is important because it contrasted different interview approaches, yet its recruitment strategy, modest sample, and self-reported outcomes limit generalization to more severely affected clinical populations. Diskin and Hodgins, 2009.
In a randomized college-student trial of 117 participants, motivational enhancement therapy (MET), brief advice, MET combined with CBT, and assessment-only comparison conditions were examined. Several interventions were associated with reduced gambling measures over time, and some MET outcomes differed from assessment-only follow-up, but the active treatments were not consistently superior to one another. The study is best interpreted as evidence that brief engagement strategies can help some concerned students, rather than proof that a distinct MI mechanism produces durable recovery in diagnosed gambling disorder. Petry et al., 2009.
Other randomized trials complicate the early positive picture
In a different randomized study of 180 people with gambling problems, brief advice reduced gambling on some outcomes compared with assessment only, whereas the combination of MET and CBT showed benefits on a more limited subset of comparisons. Outcomes did not establish the general superiority of MI-based treatment. Different populations, intervention intensity, comparison conditions, and outcome measures make direct comparisons between brief-intervention trials difficult. Petry et al., 2008.
A New Zealand trial involving 462 adults compared a single motivational interview, MI plus a workbook, MI plus workbook and booster calls, and standard helpline care. Gambling outcomes improved substantially across groups, but the study did not find overall differences between treatment arms. Exploratory subgroup results suggested possible advantages of more intensive interventions for some participants with greater severity or distress, but such findings require careful replication. Improvement over time in every arm cannot be treated as proof of the unique effect of MI. Abbott et al., 2018.
The 2022 Cochrane review
The Cochrane review of psychological therapies included 14 randomized studies overall and found preliminary evidence that motivational interviewing therapies could reduce financial losses in the short term in some samples. For MI, the estimated short-term effect on money lost was a standardized mean difference of −0.41 (95% confidence interval −0.75 to −0.07), while the estimate for symptom severity was close to zero. The authors emphasized that studies were few, often involved less severe gambling, and had methodological limitations. They rated the underlying evidence from very low to low quality. Cowlishaw et al., 2022.
This review also found stronger immediate posttreatment evidence for CBT while highlighting uncertainty about durability across psychological treatments. A statistical effect on expenditure, frequency, or severity addresses a different question from whether a person initiates treatment, maintains engagement, repairs relationships, or achieves sustained remission. These outcomes should be reported separately.
The 2025 meta-analysis substantially revises the estimate
Forman and colleagues systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of MI-informed interventions and analyzed seven studies totaling 796 participants. At posttreatment, pooled differences from comparison conditions were nearly zero for gambling frequency (Hedges's g = −0.04), expenditure (g = −0.03), and disorder symptom severity (g = 0.01). At follow-up, effects likewise approached zero: g = −0.02, −0.02, and −0.10, respectively. The investigators also reported that none of the included interventions met their proposed criteria for demonstrating MI treatment integrity. Forman et al., 2025.
This finding is especially consequential because it revisits the question of the isolated effect of MI under more explicit standards for intervention fidelity. A treatment labeled MI may contain supportive counseling, advice, feedback, self-help materials, or CBT elements, and studies may not report whether the clinician consistently used the defining MI approach. When the contrast condition also supplies attention and helpful information, differences may shrink. The 2025 analysis challenges optimistic summaries drawn from earlier pooled results; it does not establish that skilled motivational conversations are clinically worthless.
Reconciling guideline recommendations and uncertain effect sizes
The 2025 NICE guideline advises clinicians to consider MI to build confidence and commitment or encourage people who are unsure about entering treatment. NICE's accompanying rationale explicitly notes uncertainty about MI as a stand-alone intervention for reducing gambling severity and describes MI as useful for fostering commitment and treatment participation. This is consistent with distinguishing the service-engagement function of MI from independently demonstrated reductions in gambling-disorder symptoms. NICE, 2025 recommendations; NICE, rationale.
The evidence is therefore best described by outcome and context. MI as an approach to engagement is clinically recommended. Its independent effect on gambling frequency, expenditure, and symptom severity remains limited and uncertain in the best recent synthesis. CBT has a more established treatment role. Any claim that MI cures gambling disorder, outperforms CBT, or consistently prevents relapse goes beyond the available evidence.
What Counts as Genuine Motivational Interviewing?
Treatment integrity is a scientific issue
A study can describe an intervention as MI because it used one motivational conversation, an advice session, a feedback sheet, or a clinician trained in a general interviewing workshop. These activities do not guarantee that the delivered encounter displayed a collaborative MI spirit, appropriate responses to ambivalence, effective reflective listening, and support for autonomous change.
Treatment integrity research examines adherence to core methods, competence in delivering them, and the extent to which another treatment condition contains similar elements. Independent recordings, coding systems, calibration, and supervision can improve measurement. The 2025 review identified deficient reporting or verification of MI integrity as a central weakness across gambling trials. Future trials need both valid fidelity assessment and adequate separation of MI-specific effects from the benefits of nonspecific therapeutic contact. Forman et al., 2025.
Motivational interviewing versus motivational enhancement therapy
Motivational enhancement therapy is commonly a more structured, time-limited application incorporating MI-consistent counseling with individualized assessment feedback and a defined sequence of sessions. A gambling MET trial may therefore test a package that includes feedback, self-monitoring, worksheets, and goal-setting, rather than MI communication style in isolation. Conclusions about MET should identify these components and should not automatically be generalized to every MI session.
Motivational interviewing versus simply telling someone to stop
Advice can be medically important, particularly when there is imminent danger, but advice by itself is distinct from MI. In MI, information is offered with consent when appropriate, the person's perspective is explored, and decisions are connected with their priorities. A therapist can both provide an explicit clinical recommendation and use an MI-consistent interpersonal style. The relevant distinction concerns how the treatment relationship supports understanding and choice, rather than a ban on professional guidance.
Assessment Before or Alongside MI
Clinical diagnosis remains a separate process
A professional assessment establishes whether a person meets criteria for gambling disorder, describes the duration and impact of symptoms, and identifies other needs. Screening measures such as the Problem Gambling Severity Index or South Oaks Gambling Screen provide information about risk and symptom burden but do not substitute for a diagnostic interview. A high screening score is not a diagnosis, and motivation to reduce gambling does not establish one. NICE recommends validated assessment tools within a broader evaluation of gambling pattern, finances, mental health, relationships, and clinical risk. NICE, 2025.
The interview should examine what is being wagered, where and when gambling occurs, recent losses, debts, concealment, urges, attempted reduction, and impairment. It should also distinguish recurrent gambling problems from behavior associated with a manic episode and consider substance use, mood symptoms, trauma, neurodevelopmental conditions, and cognitive impairment. Psychiatric comorbidity can alter both engagement strategies and appropriate treatment sequencing. American Psychiatric Association, 2024.
Motivation and readiness are dynamic
A readiness rating or a statement that someone wants change is a description of current motivation, not a fixed trait or diagnostic category. The same person can be highly motivated to stop sports betting but uncertain about deleting an account, telling family members, or joining therapy. Clinicians can ask about confidence, practical barriers, competing goals, and prior successes, then revisit these questions as treatment proceeds.
Track clinically meaningful outcomes
Research and care plans should distinguish days gambled, money wagered or lost, gambling-related debt, symptom severity, functioning, emotional distress, and participation in treatment. Financial loss is influenced by income and opportunities to gamble; reduced expenditure can reflect temporary constraints rather than a stable improvement in compulsive behavior. Conversely, improved safety and reduced exposure may be meaningful even before a diagnostic threshold changes. Longitudinal follow-up is essential for evaluating durability.
Where MI Fits Within Evidence-Based Care
At first contact and during referral
Brief MI may help when someone contacts a primary care service, emergency department, helpline, financial counselor, or gambling clinic but feels conflicted about receiving specialized support. A clinician can explore what prompted contact, what the person hopes to protect, which options they find acceptable, and what practical step they are willing to take. NICE explicitly recommends considering brief MI to encourage additional help-seeking among people reluctant to access services. NICE, 2025.
Before and alongside gambling-specific CBT
CBT directly addresses the cognitions, learned responses, emotional triggers, and behavioral routines that maintain gambling. Treatment may include functional analysis, restructuring distorted beliefs about odds and control, coping skills, stimulus control, behavioral experiments, and relapse prevention. MI can help a person decide to enter CBT, formulate goals, and discuss barriers when participation becomes difficult. NICE recommends group CBT and individual CBT when group treatment is unavailable, unsuitable, or declined. NICE, 2025; Cowlishaw et al., 2022.
Integrated MI and CBT protocols require their own evaluation because the effects of combination treatment cannot automatically be assigned to either component. The central scientific question is whether adding verified MI improves retention, outcomes, or patient experience compared with an equally credible intervention without MI. Present trial evidence leaves that question incompletely resolved.
When gambling resumes or treatment attendance falters
Returning to gambling can involve learned responses to cues, sudden access to funds, negative emotion, interpersonal conflict, or a belief that a future win will solve current losses. MI may help reopen a collaborative discussion about goals, shame, and willingness to revise the plan. Formal relapse prevention should also identify triggers, concrete coping actions, access protections, social supports, and ways to respond promptly after a lapse. Relapse is a clinical signal for reassessment, not a basis for withdrawing care.
Family and affected others
Partners and relatives may experience financial losses, fear, emotional distress, and damaged trust even if the person who gambles does not seek treatment. When safe and mutually agreed, family participation can support accountability and communication. The patient's autonomy, relatives' safety, and confidentiality require separate consideration. Family members can access their own psychological, legal, or financial support regardless of the patient's willingness to engage in MI. NICE recommends addressing the needs of affected others and including loved ones in treatment when both parties agree. NICE, 2025.
A Clinically Responsible Example of an MI Conversation
A patient says that weekend sports betting has led to repeated borrowing, but stopping feels like abandoning the one activity that helps them connect with friends. The clinician first asks what the patient values about those weekends and reflects the social importance of the ritual. They then ask what has changed in the patient's finances and relationships and whether the patient sees a conflict between betting and maintaining those relationships.
The clinician might summarize that the patient wants to preserve friendships and regain financial security, while gambling currently threatens both. With permission, they can offer information about specialized treatment, self-exclusion, and ways to spend time with friends without betting. The next action might be an appointment with a gambling specialist, an account-access barrier, or a financial disclosure plan developed with a trusted person. The encounter does not require the clinician to pretend that continued dangerous gambling is risk-free; respectful autonomy and clear professional guidance can coexist.
An example illustrates a method of conversation, not a tested treatment script or a guarantee of outcome. Real sessions are tailored to language, cognition, safety, diagnosis, cultural context, and the person's choices.
Digital Gambling, Telehealth, and Brief Interventions
Telephone or video-based motivational conversations may lower access barriers for people who fear being identified in a clinic, have limited transportation, or prefer private first contact. Their effectiveness must nevertheless be established in specific service models. The New Zealand telephone trial found substantial reductions across all arms without overall superiority of the MI arms to standard helpline care. It illustrates why improvement after remote MI should not be automatically attributed to a unique causal ingredient. Abbott et al., 2018.
Automated reminders, chatbots, and app-based motivational prompts may borrow MI vocabulary, but they are separate intervention classes with different evidence and safety requirements. An automated conversation is not interchangeable with competent clinical MI, especially when gambling harms include severe depression, acute debt crisis, or suicidality. Digital tools require independent evaluation of clinical outcomes, privacy, escalation processes, and unintended effects before they can be described as effective therapy.
Differences Across Populations
Adolescents and young adults
Adolescents, university students, and young adults differ in developmental stage, family involvement, legal access to gambling, economic resources, and co-occurring risks. Positive findings from a college-student trial cannot be presumed to apply to minors or to adults meeting full diagnostic criteria. When young people are involved, clinicians must consider safeguarding, age-appropriate services, privacy, consent, and the impact of advertising, betting communities, and digital products. Petry et al., 2009.
Depression, anxiety, ADHD, and substance use
Gambling disorder can co-occur with depressive symptoms, anxiety, alcohol or other substance dependence, and attention or impulse-control difficulties. These relationships may complicate attendance, decision-making, mood regulation, and risk assessment. An MI conversation can explore willingness to engage with multiple services, but it is not a substitute for treating a major depressive episode, substance dependence, ADHD, or another condition when clinically indicated. NICE calls for integrated assessment and coordinated services for comorbidities. NICE, 2025.
Cultural and social contexts
Gambling practices and beliefs about therapy vary across communities. Language access, financial insecurity, stigma, gendered expectations, disability, and cultural views about privacy can affect help-seeking. MI's emphasis on personal meaning can support individualized engagement, but claims of equal effectiveness across demographic groups require adequately powered comparative studies. Accessibility adjustments, culturally responsive care, and competent interpretation should be part of service planning.
Gambling-Related Suicide Risk and Clinical Safety
Gambling-related harm is associated with elevated suicidal ideation and attempts, and an acute episode involving loss, debt, shame, or interpersonal crisis can demand immediate assessment. NICE specifically advises practitioners to ask directly about suicidal thoughts and intent, evaluate risk, develop a safety plan where appropriate, mobilize suitable support, and urgently refer people presenting considerable or immediate danger to specialist or emergency services. MI can facilitate disclosure but must not delay necessary safety action. NICE, 2025.
A responsible consultation addresses the person's immediate safety, access to funds and gambling platforms, possible coercion or abuse, housing or debt emergencies, and mental health needs. Risk assessment cannot be reduced to a motivational score, a self-help worksheet, or an assurance that a person is ready to quit. Anyone facing an immediate threat of suicide or serious harm needs emergency support through local emergency services or a crisis team.
Practical Implications for Clinicians and Service Designers
MI-informed care is most defensible when it is used for a clear engagement task, delivered by appropriately trained practitioners, and embedded in a pathway that provides assessment, evidence-based psychotherapy, practical harm reduction, and urgent crisis referral when required. Practitioners should document the person's goals, the specific decisions discussed, next steps, and subsequent follow-through without treating an apparently successful conversation as a verified treatment outcome.
Services evaluating MI should measure treatment entry and retention separately from gambling days, expenditure, symptom severity, and sustained functioning. Trials should report session content and fidelity, prespecified outcomes, blinded assessment where feasible, adequate follow-up, and who was included or excluded. A comparison with no contact asks a different question from a comparison with high-quality supportive counseling or standard helpline care.
People seeking help can ask whether a provider offers gambling-specific CBT, whether MI is intended as a preliminary engagement session or part of a structured intervention, how safety is assessed, what supports exist for financial harms, and how treatment outcomes are monitored. The most appropriate pathway depends on the person's clinical assessment, preferences, risk, and available services.
Unresolved Research Questions
The strongest methodological challenge is whether future randomized studies can isolate MI-specific mechanisms while establishing that the intervention was delivered competently. Studies also need to investigate whether MI improves access for reluctant help-seekers, reduces early dropout, enhances CBT engagement, or works better for clearly defined subgroups. These service outcomes have not been adequately settled by studies focused primarily on gambling frequency and expenditure.
Additional uncertainties concern optimal dosage, remote versus face-to-face delivery, maintenance over several years, economic outcomes, cultural adaptation, and the effects of adding MI to treatment for co-occurring psychiatric conditions. Researchers should report the distinction between measured gambling reductions and the broader recovery goals valued by patients and affected families. The available literature supports careful use and ongoing evaluation rather than a universal estimate of benefit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is motivational interviewing a treatment for gambling disorder?
MI is used within gambling care, particularly to explore ambivalence and encourage engagement. NICE recommends considering it to strengthen confidence and commitment. Recent randomized-trial synthesis does not show a reliable stand-alone advantage over comparison conditions for gambling frequency, spending, or symptom severity. For treatment of the disorder itself, gambling-specific CBT has stronger guideline support. NICE, 2025; Forman et al., 2025.
Can one motivational interviewing session stop harmful gambling?
A single session can help someone decide on a meaningful next step, and some early trials reported improvements. The average effect cannot be promised for an individual, and more recent pooled results are close to zero relative to controls. A person's risks, diagnosis, financial exposure, and support needs determine whether additional treatment and protections are necessary.
What is the difference between MI and CBT?
MI primarily explores and strengthens readiness, motivation, and commitment. Gambling-specific CBT applies structured strategies to distorted gambling beliefs, behavior patterns, triggers, and relapse prevention. A clinician may use both approaches, but they serve partly different functions and the incremental benefit of combining them requires direct testing.
Does motivational interviewing work when someone does not want treatment?
It may support a respectful conversation about competing priorities and the possibility of accessing help. It cannot guarantee that someone will seek treatment or change behavior. When immediate safety risks exist, clinical assessment and emergency management take priority over motivational discussion.
Can family members use motivational interviewing on someone who gambles?
Relatives can adopt respectful listening and avoid shaming language, but delivering clinical MI is a skilled professional activity. Family members also need their own support, safety planning, and financial boundaries. Pressuring a person through an imitation of therapy can undermine trust. Specialist services can advise on options when the person who gambles is reluctant to attend.
Does a positive gambling screening score mean MI is appropriate?
A screening result signals the need for assessment; it does not establish a diagnosis or a treatment plan. MI may be useful for engagement, but the decision must reflect full clinical presentation, preferences, severity, suicide risk, comorbidities, and available care.
Related Articles
Gambling Disorder Treatment: Psychological Care and Recovery — The wider clinical pathway for psychotherapy, practical safeguards, and recovery.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Gambling Disorder — Gambling-specific CBT mechanisms, evidence, and structured interventions.
Gambling Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment — Diagnostic criteria and the full clinical picture.
Gambling Disorder Screening: PGSI, SOGS, and Clinical Assessment — Why screening and diagnosis require distinct interpretations.
How to Stop Gambling: Evidence-Based First Steps and Ongoing Support — Practical actions and continuing support for gambling-related harms.
References
Abbott, M., Bellringer, M., Hodgins, D., Palmer du Preez, K., Landon, J., Sullivan, S., and Feigin, V. (2018). Brief telephone interventions for problem gambling: A randomized controlled trial. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14149.
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). APA gambling disorder information.
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.
Diskin, K. M., and Hodgins, D. C. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of a single session motivational intervention for concerned gamblers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(5), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.01.018.
Forman, D. P., Boughter, J. R., McAfee, N. W., Ginley, M. K., Whelan, J. P., and Pfund, R. A. (2025). Motivational-interviewing-informed interventions for problem gambling and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 39(4), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0001069.
Hodgins, D. C., Currie, S., el-Guebaly, N., and Peden, N. (2004). Brief motivational treatment for problem gambling: A 24-month follow-up. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.18.3.293.
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.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2025). Gambling-related harms: Rationale and impact, psychological interventions. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng248/chapter/Rationale-and-impact.
Petry, N. M., Weinstock, J., Ledgerwood, D. M., and Morasco, B. J. (2008). A randomized trial of brief interventions for problem and pathological gamblers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(2), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.318.
Petry, N. M., Weinstock, J., Morasco, B. J., and Ledgerwood, D. M. (2009). Brief motivational interventions for college student problem gamblers. Addiction, 104(9), 1569–1578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02652.x.
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Addictive behaviour: Disorders due to addictive behaviors. https://www.who.int/health-topics/addictive-behaviour.