Results

Risk Factors for Problem and Pathological Gambling Risk Factors for Problem and Pathological Gambling in Consumers with Schizophreniain Consumers with Schizophrenia

Rani A. Desai, MPH, PhD., Laura B. Kozma, BA, Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhDRani A. Desai, MPH, PhD., Laura B. Kozma, BA, Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhDYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CTYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

Recreational Problem/Pathological

Variable OR p OR pAge, yrs 0.98 .057 0.98 .137Gender 2.00 .023 1.67 .194Single 0.74 .289 2.04 .056PANSS (neg) 0.58 .006 0.61 .058Alcohol (ASI) 1.10 .424 1.42 .007Depression 1.01 .541 1.03 .035Outpatient MH visit 2.27 .050 5.56 .028ER visit 2.08 .095 0.63 .438Threatened violence 0.36 .077 1.08 .894Time w/sig. other 1.16 .066 1.31 .008

Introduction• Studies have shown lifetime prevalence rates of problem gambling in the general population between 0.8 and 1.5% (Kallick et al. 1979, NORC 1999, Shaffer & Hall 1997)

• Cunningham-Williams et al. found that problem gamblers were more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders than non-gamblers

• People with schizophrenia are vulnerable to alcohol and substance related disorders (Slutske et al. 2000)

Hypotheses• A higher proportion of problem gamblers will be found in this sample than in the general population

• Problem gamblers will be more likely to suffer from alcohol abuse

Method• 337 consumers diagnosed with schizophrenia were recruited and interviewed

• 28.5% female• 56.1% White/Caucasian• Mean age = 46.9 ± 11.0

• Participants were interviewed on several measures including:

• Schizophrenia Care and Assessment – Health Questionnaire (Lehman et al. 2003)• South Oaks Gambling Screen (Lesieur & Blume 1987)• NORC DSM Screen for Gambling Problems (NORC 1999)• Diagnostic Interview Schedule (Robins et al. 1981)

• The sample was then divided into three groups: Non- Gamblers (NG) (46.0%), Recreational Gamblers (RG) (34.7%), and Problem/Pathological Gamblers (PPG) (19.3%) using the NORC DSM Screen for Gambling Problems.

• Chi-square and ANOVA analyses were performed to evaluate the differences between types of gamblers and various clinical and functional measures as well as to compare recreation and problem/pathological gamblers on gambling characteristics

• Multinomial logistic regression models were run to evaluate risk factors for recreational and problem/pathological gamblers

Chi-square and ANOVA results for clinical and functional measures

1Only significant results (p≤.05) are presented

Comparison of RG and PPG on Gambling Characteristics

Significantly more PPGs reported gambling for excitement (p=.000), first gambling before the age of 18 (p=.037) and gambled more days in the previous year then RGs (144.1, 40.2, p=.000).

Risk Factors for Recreation and Problem/Pathological Gamblers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Lottery Sports Cards Machine Other

Favorite Type of Gambling

Nu

mb

er o

f G

amb

lers

RG

PPG

Discussion• As hypothesized, a higher proportion of problem gamblers were found in this is sample than other studies have found in the general population suggesting that consumers with schizophrenia may be at a higher risk for being a problem or pathological gambler

• Problem/pathological gamblers were scored significantly higher of the ASI Alcohol scale compared to non gamblers, additionally, it was also a risk factor for being a problem/pathological gambler which both warrants both more research and highlights potential clinical implications for treatment

Variable NG RG PPG

Arrested 81 (52.3) 82 (70.1) 47 (72.3)

Ever incarcerated 54 (34.8) 53 (45.3) 37 (57.8)

Threatened to injure other 13 (8.4) 5 (4.3) 10 (15.6)

≥Psychiatrist, clinician visit

131 (84.5) 107 (91.5) 62 (95.4)

ASI alcohol 0.06 (0.12)a 0.08 (0.12)ab 0.12 (0.02)b

CES-D (depression) 22.9 (12.3)a 23.8 (12.1)ab 27.7 (9.4)b