Trial Outcomes & Findings for The Context of Gambling Treatment: Towards Creating an Online Service to Reduce Problem Gambling - Part Five (NCT NCT05084885)

Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant.

Level of gambling frequency was measured using self reported frequency on a 7 point scale on 12 types of gambling. We used the maximum frequency across the twelve types of gambling so that if they reported participating in 5 types of gambling ranging from once per year (score of 1) to everyday (score of 7), we would score the person as 7. This way the measure was sensitive to changes in the most problematic frequent form of gambling for that person. Lower levels of gambling frequency after 12 months would be a positive outcome. To score frequency we computed each person's highest frequency for a range from 0 (none) to 7 (everyday) with higher numbers indicating more frequent gambling. The same was done for their post-test scores. We computed the difference score of post-test from pre-test which could range from 7 to -7 with negative numbers indicating improvement (reduced gambling participation).

Gambling problems are measured using PGSI (Ferris \& Wynne, 2001). Each of the 9 item is measured on a 4 point scale from never (0) to almost always (3). The total ranges from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicate more gambling problems; Lower scores at followup would be a positive outcome. Total scores form 3 to 7 indicate moderate gambling problems; scores 7 or higher indicate severe gambling problems. In this study we subtracted pre-test scores from post test scores to compute a change score which would range from27 to -27 with higher number indicating a worse outcome and negative numbers indicating a positive outcome.

The Kessler-6 measures psychological distress (K6; Galea, et al., 2007). Higher scores indicate more psychological distress. Score 0 to 25 with scores over 8 indicating moderate psychological distress. We are predicting lower levels of psychological distress at 3 follow-up as measured using the Kessler-6 (K6; Galea, et al., 2007). For the evaluation we computed the difference of post-test from pre-test with a range from 25 to -25 with negative numbers indicating an improvement.

Mindfulness was measured using the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown \& Ryan, 2003). Range 1 to 6 based on average score per item; higher scores mean greater mindfulness. For the evaluation we computed the difference of the post-test and the pre-test for a range from 6 to -6 with positive numbers indicating an improvement in mindfulness.

Number of games played was measured using a self report measure of participation in 12 games (see frequently above). Fewer games played would be a positive outcome. Possible range is from 0 to 12. We computed the difference score from pre-test to post-test which could range from 12 to -12 with negative numbers indicating improvement (reduced gambling participation).

Level of gambling frequency was measured using self reported frequency on a 7 point scale on 12 types of gambling. We used the maximum frequency across the twelve types of gambling so that if they reported participating in 5 types of gambling ranging from once per year (score of 1) to everyday (score of 7), we would score the person as 7. This way the measure was sensitive to changes in the most problematic frequent form of gambling for that person. Lower levels of gambling frequency after 12 months would be a positive outcome. To score frequency we computed each person's highest frequency for a range from 0 (none) to 7 (everyday) with higher numbers indicating more frequent gambling. The same was done for their post-test scores. We computed the difference score of post-test from pre-test which could range from 7 to -7 with negative numbers indicating improvement (reduced gambling participation).

Gambling problems are measured using PGSI (Ferris \& Wynne, 2001). Each of the 9 item is measured on a 4 point scale from never (0) to almost always (3). The total ranges from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicate more gambling problems; Lower scores at followup would be a positive outcome. Total scores form 3 to 7 indicate moderate gambling problems; scores 7 or higher indicate severe gambling problems. In this study we subtracted pre-test scores from post test scores to compute a change score which would range from27 to -27 with higher number indicating a worse outcome and negative numbers indicating a positive outcome.

The Kessler-6 measures psychological distress (K6; Galea, et al., 2007). Higher scores indicate more psychological distress. Score 0 to 25 with scores over 8 indicating moderate psychological distress. We are predicting lower levels of psychological distress at 3 follow-up as measured using the Kessler-6 (K6; Galea, et al., 2007). For the evaluation we computed the difference of post-test from pre-test with a range from 25 to -25 with negative numbers indicating an improvement.

Mindfulness was measured using the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown \& Ryan, 2003). Range 1 to 6 based on average score per item; higher scores mean greater mindfulness. For the evaluation we computed the difference of the post-test and the pre-test for a range from 6 to -6 with positive numbers indicating an improvement in mindfulness.

Number of games played was measured using a self report measure of participation in 12 games (see frequently above). Fewer games played would be a positive outcome. Possible range is from 0 to 12. We computed the difference score from pre-test to post-test which could range from 12 to -12 with negative numbers indicating improvement (reduced gambling participation).

Higher levels of quality of life is expected as a result of the intervention. Each item was scored on a 6 point scale from "1, At no time" to "6, All of the time" for a total score ranging from 6 to 30. To assess the outcome we computed the difference score from pre-test to post-test which could range from 24 to -24 with positive numbers indicating improvement (higher quality of life).

Higher levels of quality of life is expected as a result of the intervention. Each item was scored on a 6 point scale from "1, At no time" to "6, All of the time" for a total score ranging from 6 to 30. To assess the outcome we computed the difference score from pre-test to post-test which could range from 24 to -24 with positive numbers indicating improvement (higher quality of life).

This scale measures perception of social support. Each item is measured on a 7 point scale from 1 to 7, for a total score of 12 to 84. Higher scores indicate higher levels of social support, so an increase in social support would be a positive change. For the evaluation we computer the differences from pre-test to post-test for a range from 72 to -72 with positive numbers indicate an improvement in perceived social support.

This scale measures perception of social support. Each item is measured on a 7 point scale from 1 to 7, for a total score of 12 to 84. Higher scores indicate higher levels of social support, so an increase in social support would be a positive change. For the evaluation we computer the differences from pre-test to post-test for a range from 72 to -72 with positive numbers indicate an improvement in perceived social support.

This scale measures the participants understanding of random events using a true or false format.. Each item is scored as correct or incorrect for a total score of 0 to 28. Higher scores mean they have a better understanding of random events and an increase in score would be a positive change. For the evaluation we computed the difference from pre-test to post-test for a range from 28 to -28 with positive number indicating improvement in the participants understanding of random chance.

This scale measures the participants understanding of random events using a true or false format.. Each item is scored as correct or incorrect for a total score of 0 to 28. Higher scores mean they have a better understanding of random events and an increase in score would be a positive change. For the evaluation we computed the difference from pre-test to post-test for a range from 28 to -28 with positive number indicating improvement in the participants understanding of random chance.

The visual analog scale is based on similar measures used in drug research (e.g., Duncan, et al., 2001; Berger, et al., 1996). Each of 4 items is scored from 0 to 100, and the average is computed for a range from 0 to 100 with higher scores mean more cravings to gamble. A positive outcome would be lower scores at followup. For the evaluation we computed the difference between the post-test and pre-test for a range from 100 to -100, with negative numbers indicating an decrease in cravings.

The visual analog scale is based on similar measures used in drug research (e.g., Duncan, et al., 2001; Berger, et al., 1996). Each of 4 items is scored from 0 to 100, and the average is computed for a range from 0 to 100 with higher scores mean more cravings to gamble. A positive outcome would be lower scores at followup. For the evaluation we computed the difference between the post-test and pre-test for a range from 100 to -100, with negative numbers indicating an decrease in cravings.

Self report measure of money spent gambling in past 6 months. Lower amounts spend would be a positive outcome.For the evaluation we compute the difference between spending at post-test from pre-test with negative numbers indicating an improvement (decrease in spending).

Self report measure of money spent gambling in past 6 months. Lower amounts spend would be a positive outcome.For the evaluation we compute the difference between spending at post-test from pre-test with negative numbers indicating an improvement (decrease in spending).