How We Lost 90% of Participants on a Bad Bet: Results from a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial on Cognitive Bias Modification in Problem Gamblers.

Whilst opportunities to participate in gambling have increased, access to support for problem gamblers is lacking behind. This lack of balance calls for improved and accessible intervention methods. The present double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) explored the effectiveness of two interventions targeting automatic cognitive processes, known as Attentional Bias Modification (AtBM) and Approach Bias Modification (ApBM). It was hypothesized these interventions would reduce gambling behavior and reduce or reverse targeted biases. Participants (N = 331) were community-recruited Flemish (35%) and Dutch (65%) adult problem gamblers motivated to reduce or stop their gambling who received either six sessions of active training (AtBM or ApBM) or of the corresponding sham-training (sham-AtBM or sham-ApBM). Due to high attrition rates (90.1% up to the intervention phase) the study was terminated before completion, since it would greatly limit the validity of any results. A post hoc qualitative study was performed on a subset of participants to gain insight into contributing factors for the high attrition rate. Issues negatively impacting participants' motivation to complete the program were identified, as well as elements of the program that received approval. The results from this study provide a first insight into the potential of the use of online cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions in problem gambling (PG). Suggestions and directions for future studies are discussed.

Losing sight of Luck: Automatic approach tendencies toward gambling cues in Canadian moderate- to high-risk gamblers - A replication study.

Evidence for approach bias tendencies to underly automatic behavioural impulses towards seeking out gambling activities in the presence of appetitive salient cues was first shown by Boffo et al. (2018) in a Dutch sample. Relative to non-problem gamblers, moderate-to-high-risk gamblers demonstrated stronger approach tendencies towards gambling-related stimuli compared with neutral ones. Moreover, gambling approach bias was associated with past-month gambling behaviour and predictive of gambling activity persistence over time. The current study aimed to replicate these findings within a Canadian sample evaluating the concurrent and longitudinal correlates of gambling approach bias. The study was conducted online, available throughout Canada. Twenty-seven non-treatment-seeking moderate-to-high-risk gamblers and 26 non-problem gamblers community-recruited via multiple channels (i.e., internet and newspaper advertisements, land-based flyers, and university recruitment portals). Participants completed two online assessment sessions 6-months apart. Each session included (1) self-report measures of gambling behaviour (frequency, duration, and expenditure), (2) self-report assessment of problem gambling severity (PGSI), and (3) a gambling approach-avoidance task, utilising culturally relevant stimuli tailored to individual gambling habits. However, our study failed to replicate Boffo et al. (2018) findings in a Canadian sample. Relative to non-problem gamblers, moderate-to-high-risk gamblers did not exhibit greater approach bias tendencies towards gambling-related stimuli compared to neutral stimuli. Moreover, gambling approach bias was not predictive of prospective gambling behaviour (frequency, duration, or expenditure) or severity of gambling problems. Reported results do not provide evidence for approach tendencies contributing to problematic gambling behaviour in a Canadian sample of moderate-to-high-risk gamblers compared to non-problematic gambler controls. Further replications on the topic are needed. Future research should evaluate approach tendencies within the gambling context, considering the potential impact of task reliability to assess approach bias in light of individual gambling modality preferences.

Reconsolidation-based treatment for fear of public speaking: a systematic pilot study using propranolol.

Pharmacological manipulation of memory reconsolidation opens up promising new avenues for anxiety disorder treatment. However, few studies have directly investigated reconsolidation-based approaches in subclinical or clinical populations, leaving optimal means of fear memory reactivation unknown. We conducted a systematic pilot study to assess whether a reconsolidation-based treatment could tackle public speaking anxiety in a subclinical sample (N = 60). As lab studies indicate that the duration of reactivation may be important for inducing reconsolidation, we investigated several speech lengths to help inform further translational efforts. Participants underwent a stress-inducing speech task composed of 3-min preparation, and from 0 to 9 min of public speaking, in 1-min increments. They then received either 40 mg of propranolol (n = 40) or placebo (n = 20), double-blind, allocated 4:2 for each speech duration. Participants performed a second speech 1 week post treatment, and were followed up with questionnaires 1- and 3 months later. Both self-reported speech distress and questionnaire measures of public speaking anxiety showed clear reductions following treatment. However, propranolol did not reliably outperform placebo, regardless of speech duration at treatment. Physiological responses (heart rate and salivary cortisol) to the public speaking task remained stable from treatment to test. These findings highlight the challenges facing the translation of laboratory research on memory reconsolidation into clinical interventions. Lack of explicit controls for factors beyond duration, such as 'prediction error', could explain these null findings, but positive results in clinical interventions are needed to demonstrate that taking such factors into account can deliver the promises of reconsolidation-based therapy.