Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:38:05.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Corrections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2013

‘Deaf-mute’: time to abandon stigmatisation of the deaf community. The Psychiatrist 2013; 37:36-37. Dr Sara L. Adshead’s affiliation should read: Sara L. Adshead, Consultant Psychiatrist, Leamington Spa (formerly Locum Consultant Psychiatrist, National Deaf Mental Health Service, Birmingham).

Problem gambling: what can psychiatrists do? The Psychiatrist 2013; 37:1-3. Page 2, col. 2, para. 3 onwards should read:

Brief interventions have yielded success in decreasing gambling. Reference Petry, Weinstock, Ledgerwood and Morasco18,Reference Petry, Weinstock, Morasco and Ledgerwood19 For example, in a randomised trial, Petry et al Reference Petry, Weinstock, Morasco and Ledgerwood19 compared a brief 10-minute intervention with an assessment only control, one session of motivational enhancement therapy (MET), and a session of MET plus three sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). The one session of MET was the only intervention to yield clinically significant reductions in gambling at 9 months follow-up. The brief 10-minute intervention evidenced some reductions in gambling compared with the control condition, as did the MET plus CBT condition; however, none of the ‘active’ interventions differed significantly from one another. Hence, brief interventions were successful in reducing gambling behaviours, although the optimal length may range from 10 min to up to a more traditional 50-minute session. Reference Petry, Weinstock, Ledgerwood and Morasco18,Reference Petry, Weinstock, Morasco and Ledgerwood19 Importantly, participants in this study Reference Petry, Weinstock, Morasco and Ledgerwood19 were not seeking treatment for their gambling problems, emphasizing the usefulness of brief interventions when used opportunistically. Additional studies of this brief intervention are ongoing in the USA and in the UK.

More intensive gambling treatments

Although the focus of this editorial has been on brief interventions that can be offered to gamblers in mental health settings, there may be instances in which such interventions are not sufficient. Individuals who are actively seeking interventions, or those whose lives have been substantially affected by gambling, may require more intensive treatment. Additionally, some persons may have already received brief interventions for gambling and not benefitted. Such cases would warrant referral to specialist gambling treatment services.

However, treatment provision for problem gamblers in Britain is at best patchy and at worst non-existent. Reference George and Copello20 There is only one such specialist service in the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain – the National Problem Gambling Clinic. Reference Bowden-Jones and Clark21

References

18 Petry, NM, Weinstock, J, Ledgerwood, DM, Morasco, B. A randomized trial of brief interventions for problem and pathological gamblers. J Consult Clin Psychol 2008; 76: 318–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Petry, N, Weinstock, J, Morasco, BJ, Ledgerwood, DM. Brief motivational interventions for college student problem gamblers. Addiction 2009; 104: 1569–78.Google Scholar
20 George, S, Copello, A. Treatment provision for Britain's problem gamblers: present gaps and future opportunities. Adv Psych Treat 2011; 17: 318–22.Google Scholar
21 Bowden-Jones, H, Clark, L. Pathological gambling: a neurobiological and clinical update. Br J Psychiatry 2011; 199: 87–9.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.