Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40908436›Full record

ArticleJournal of gambling studies2025

Electronic Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (e-SBIRT) for Gambling Harm: A Mixed-methods Acceptability Study.

Simon Wright, Jessica Smith, Glen Dighton, Martyn Quigley, Simon Dymond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gambling studies, 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

5 authors.

Simon WrightSchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Campus, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK. 2380375@swansea.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0868-8298
Jessica SmithSchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Campus, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Glen DightonSchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Campus, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Martyn QuigleySchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Campus, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Simon DymondSchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Campus, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gambling harm is a significant public health burden, yet treatment uptake is low. Electronic screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (e-SBIRT) programmes have potential to increase uptake and improve treatment outcomes. However, no studies to date have investigated e-SBIRT in the context of gambling. We conducted a single-arm mixed-methods study of acceptability of e-SBIRT for gambling. Quantitative acceptability was indicated by users' perceived satisfaction, impact and helpfulness of the e-SBIRT. Qualitative acceptability was explored using semi-structured interviews. Participants (n = 63), pre-screened for gambling severity, reported high levels of satisfaction with the e-SBIRT, found it helpful, and were more likely to seek treatment. Participants with higher gambling severity scores found the e-SBIRT more acceptable and were more likely to seek treatment following the intervention. Qualitative feedback (n = 7) supported the e-SBIRT's acceptability. The present findings support the acceptability of e-SBIRT for gambling. Further research is required to refine the intervention and examine its effectiveness with those with gambling harm.

Indexed as

GamblingMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CarePsychotherapy, BriefReferral and ConsultationAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionAcceptabilityBrief interventionE-SBIRTGamblingMixed-methods

Identifiers

PMID40908436
PMCPMC12657564

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.