Quality of life instruments used in problem gambling studies: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

Highlights

• The first review assessing the suitability of QOL instruments in gambling problem.

• A high heterogeneity of used QOL/HRQOL instruments.

• Used instruments not completely or not at all validated in this population.

• Twenty-six domains explored by inventoried QOL/HQOL instruments.

• Smaller effect size of QOL/HRQOL instruments than gambling outcomes.

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the instruments used in original articles to measure quality of life (QOL) or health-related QOL (HRQOL) in gambling-disorder patients and to assess their suitability.

The systematic literature search to identify QOL/HRQOL instruments used among gambling-disorder patients was performed in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases up to November 2018. A meta-analysis was performed to study the effect size of the QOL/HRQOL instruments and gambling outcomes after an intervention.

Thirty-five studies were included. Seven types of instruments aiming at measuring QOL/HRQOL were identified. These instruments explored twenty-six domains. The instruments used were not properly validated in the studies. Most of the clinical trials reported a significant difference in QOL/HRQOL between pre- and post-intervention. These results were concordant with gambling outcomes but had a smaller effect size than gambling outcomes.

The currently used general instruments are efficient to measure a significant change after an intervention but might not evaluate specific areas of health related QOL impacted by gambling disorders

Introduction

Problem gambling is characterized by a persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior leading to clinically significant impairment or distress (Browne et al., 2016). However treatment outcomes in this field remain poorly defined and are measured inconsistently across studies (Pickering et al., 2017). This is probably due to no consensual definition of recovery, as remission is only defined by no diagnostic operatory criterion during twelve months (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Moreover, the course of the disease can vary deeply from one subject to another, as attests DSM-5 specification of the diagnosis “episodic” or “persistent”. Gambling disorder does not follow a linear course over time (Bruneau et al., 2016; LaPlante et al., 2008; Slutske et al., 2003). A wide range of outcome measures is used in gambling disorder research (Walker et al., 2006). A recent systematic review identified sixty-three different outcome measures in gambling disorder studies (Pickering et al., 2017). Their authors recommend developing a multidimensional scale that could assess the efficacy of an intervention in various domains of functioning (Pickering et al., 2017). Earlier, the Banff Consensus provided a framework with the minimum features of reporting efficacy of intervention and came to support the relevance of quality of life assessment in gambling disorder, in complement with the reduction of gambling behavior and the reduction of problems caused by gambling (Walker et al., 2006).

In 1993, the World Health Organization defined quality of life (QOL) “as an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It is a broad ranging concept affected in a complex way by the person's physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, and their relationship to salient features of their environment” (Szabo and WHOQOL Group, 1996). Two types of QOL instruments are usually used: (i) general QOL instruments exploring overall QOL regardless of any health condition and (ii) health-related QOL (HRQOL) classically involving four areas: physical, physical well-being, psychological state and social relations (Leplège, 1999). On one hand, “quality of life" describes a subjective feeling of satisfaction with life in domains of importance to the subjects. On the other hand, “health-related quality of life” reports a subjective perception of the impact of the disease and its treatment(s) on daily life, physical, psychological and social functioning and well-being (Leidy et al., 1999).

QOL has been discussed in the medical literature since the 1960s (Elkinton, 1966). It became increasingly important in heath care to measure outcomes beyond morbidity and biological functioning (Karimi and Brazier, 2016). The practice of medicine is often based on the identification and management of symptoms, while patients' expectations go beyond management of symptoms: they are looking for optimal well-being (Luquiens and Aubin, 2014). In addiction, QOL assessment matches with the treatment goal of enhanced client functioning and predict treatment adherence (Laudet, 2011). Moreover, participants with addiction at all stages of recovery expressed concerns about multiple areas of functioning (Laudet et al., 2009). QOL is often included as a secondary endpoint in clinical trials, reflecting patients’ feelings and functioning and the impact of their health condition beyond simple symptom assessment (Carr et al., 2001). In 2006, Walker et al. stressed that there was a lack of evaluated or validated psychometric instruments assessing QOL in gambling disorder (Walker et al., 2006) whereas evaluated or validated psychometric instruments assessing QOL do exist in substance use disorders (Luquiens et al., 2016; Neale et al., 2016).

The purpose of this review was (i) to identify the instruments used in original articles to measure QOL/HRQOL in subjects with a gambling disorder in all original articles and then (ii) to assess the suitability of these instruments (reliability, content validity, effect size) in the gambling disorder field.