Online gamblers are more likely to develop a gambling problem than those who gamble in a retail environment, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a harder addiction to kick. You might guess that the always-present temptation of mobile gambling would make it more of a challenge to avoid than traditional land-based casinos. On the other hand, researchers have speculated that because online gambling addiction strikes so much faster, it might not get its roots in as deep before the gambler attempts to quit.
So, is it easier or harder to quit online gambling compared to gambling in person?
A team from Nantes University in France set out to investigate that question and several others related to recovery from gambling addiction. The researchers compared the frequency of recovery over one- and two-year periods among patients experiencing gambling disorder, splitting the groups up according to whether they gambled online or in person.
Beyond that, the researchers wanted to compare online, offline, and hybrid gamblers based on sociodemographic, gambling, and clinical characteristics at inclusion. Finally, the study team aimed to determine whether the choice of gambling medium—online or offline—predicted a person’s chances of recovery.
Their findings: Quitting online gambling is not measurably easier or harder. The recovery rates in the study groups were essentially the same for each channel. That’s a remarkable finding, given that arguments in both directions exist for one channel to be “stickier” than the other.
The researchers defined recovery as the absence of a gambling disorder diagnosis, meaning the participant met fewer than four of the criteria set out in the DSM-5. In some cases, the therapeutic goal was different. For both online and offline gamblers, approximately half were looking to stop gambling entirely, while the others sought to reduce or control their gambling instead.
Online Gamblers Start Younger, Have Problems Earlier
The study group consisted of 235 gamblers, about 60% of whom gambled only in person. Most of the remainder gambled both online and offline. Likewise, treatment interventions varied, but most participants received some form of individual therapy, and only five required in-patient treatment.
Those who gambled at least partially online were, on average, 11 years younger than the retail-only group. Based on previous studies, researchers hypothesized the gambling trajectories of online gamblers start earlier and progress faster than offline players.
However, the researchers anticipated this would offer a silver lining. They hypothesized that the shorter interval between starting to gamble and seeking help meant that online gamblers would be getting treatment sooner, and interventions at this stage could be more effective. They anticipated a higher recovery rate for online gamblers, but the data didn’t support that guess.
Encouragingly, the results showed that roughly three-quarters of patients experienced recovery over both the mid-term (one-year) and long-term (two-year) timescales. However, they found no difference between online and offline gamblers. Several other factors seemed to play a role in recovery, but not a player’s preferred gambling channel.
Specifically, results showed that patients with a higher sense of self-efficacy and without mood disorders at inclusion were more likely to recover in the mid-term. Further, a lower “sensation-seeking” level was associated with long-term success.
Researchers suggest that bettering perceived self-efficacy (the belief one can achieve a goal) and treating existing mood disorders may benefit middle-term outcomes. Additionally, findings indicate treatments addressing sensation-seeking may provide helpful care strategies to achieve longer-term success.
Study Offers ‘Better’ Grasp of Recovery Predictors
Discussing the limitations of this study, the researchers acknowledge that the statistics included only those participants who participated in the full study. Those who dropped out likely had worse clinical outcomes so that the findings may overstate the real-world recovery rate.
Additionally, they note the low number of online-only gamblers compared to hybrid gamblers in the study and acknowledge that an effect might appear with a larger sample of online-only gamblers. That said, they say that the study’s result reflects the observed reality of patients in the behavioral addictions arm of the clinical investigations unit at Nantes University Hospital.
While “quite contrary to what might have been expected,” they’ve found gambling both online and offline does not impede recovery in patients initiating a specialized treatment.
Despite these limitations, researchers say this work is “an important advance in gambling disorder research” because recovery has received little attention in existing literature. The study, they say, “provides a better understanding of the differences related to the gambling medium and of the predictors of middle-term and long-term recovery.”
Results Offer Possible Treatment and Prevention Measures
While the results suggest gambling medium does not influence recovery, researchers believe it’s necessary to address the speed at which online gamblers can develop a problem.
The earlier and shorter gambling course of online gamblers must be taken into account to increase prevention among the youngest, inform families on the risks of gambling, especially on the internet, and promote access to care.
Further, as previously noted, the factors associated with recovery offer up possible treatment areas.
The enhancement of perceived self-efficacy by motivational interviewing and cognitive therapy, and the treatment mood disorders by specific medications may represent helpful care strategies for favouring the achievement of middle-term recovery. Moreover, treatment strategies focused on the management of sensation seeking may be beneficial for maintaining long-term recovery.
Finally, the results highlighted a need for long-term follow-up with gambling disorder patients, even post-remission.
As the frequency of recovery was stable or even increased between one and two years after treatment initiation and because factors associated with middle and long-term recovery were not the same, it is of high importance to encourage long-term follow-up, even after remission, to help patients maintain recovery and prevent relapses.
About the Author
