Evidence mapPaperPMID 40468443Full record

Trial reportAddiction science & clinical practice2025

Acceptability of the content and functionality of a just-in-time adaptive intervention for gambling problems: a mixed-methods evaluation of gambling habit hacker.

S N Rodda, S S Merkouris, C J Greenwood, A C Thomas, D I Lubman, N A Dowling

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

S N RoddaDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Auckland University of Technology, 90 Akoranga Drive, Auckland, New Zealand. simone.rodda@aut.ac.nz.
S S MerkourisSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.
C J GreenwoodSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.
A C ThomasSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.
D I LubmanMonash Addiction Research Centre and Eastern Health Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
N A DowlingSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundJust-In-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) offer real-time support to help individuals adhere to gambling expenditure goals. This mixed-methods study evaluated the acceptability of a JITAI called Gambling Habit Hacker, focusing on both the app’s content and functionality.

methodsAustralian participants who had recently completed a micro-randomized trial of the app provided feedback through semi-structured interviews. Acceptability was further assessed using app usage and engagement metrics, including registration, adherence to the ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocol, duration and timing of app use, and interaction with intervention content. Subscales of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) were also used. Intervention fidelity was evaluated by examining adherence to the EMA protocol, strategy selection, and action plan completion.

resultsParticipants (n = 174) completed 4382 EMA entries over a 28-day period, averaging 25 EMAs each, with the highest completion rate observed in Week 1. Of those, 48% were micro-randomized to receive the intervention, and 80% of this group completed at least one intervention. Across the trial, participants created 1307 action and coping plans, most commonly focused on behaviour substitution, initiating rewards, or limiting access to cash. In the post-intervention survey (n = 141), participants reported increased awareness, knowledge, and shifts in attitudes toward gambling, exceeding minimally acceptable thresholds. Semi-structured interviews with 11 participants revealed two primary motivations for using the app: (1) goal setting with monitoring, and (2) goal adherence with an emphasis on managing urges. Qualitative and quantitative findings suggest future optimisation should include customising the timing and frequency of EMAs and adopting a hybrid push–pull approach to intervention delivery. Functionality improvements could also include the ability to save and adjust action plans in real time to enhance responsiveness in high-risk situations. Engagement may be further improved by incorporating additional lived experience content, such as videos and audio recordings.

conclusionGambling Habit Hacker was found to be acceptable for providing support in adhering to gambling expenditure limits and, over time, reducing gambling spend. Future optimisation could improve its tailoring to individual needs and enhance user engagement.

trial registrationThis trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000497707) and approved by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020 − 304).

Indexed as

GamblingMobile ApplicationsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdaptation, PsychologicalAdultAustraliaEcological Momentary AssessmentFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedEcological momentary interventionGoal settingHarm reductionImplementation planningmHealthTreatment

Identifiers

PMID40468443
PMCPMC12139257

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.