Addictive behaviors · 2020
Gender and gambling disorder: Differences in compulsivity-related neurocognitive domains.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mallorquí-Bagué Núria, Mestre-Bach Gemma, Lozano-Madrid María, Granero Roser, Vintró-Alcaraz Cristina, Fernández-Aranda Fernando, Gómez-Peña Mónica, Moragas Laura, Del Pino-Gutierrez Amparo, Menchón José M, Jiménez-Murcia Susana
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It has been suggested that compulsivity has an essential role in gambling disorder (GD), yet there is a lack of literature exploring the link between GD, compulsivity and gender. Our main aim was to explore gender differences between two of the neurocognitive domains of compulsivity (attentional set-shifting and attentional bias and disengagement) in patients with GD and compare them with healthy controls (HCs).
METHODS: The sample included 57 treatment-seeking adults with GD and 60 HCs recruited from the general population.
RESULTS: The pairwise comparisons showed a worse attentional set-shifting performance in women with GD than in men (total trials (p = 0.042, |d| = 0.56), perseverative responses (p = 0.001, |d| = 0.89), trails to complete the first category (p = 0.001, |d| = 0.78) and categories completed (p = 0.001, |d| = 0.98. Also, men with GD presented higher difficulties than HC men in the two assessed compulsivity domains (attentional bias and disengagement and attentional set-shifting; Stroop interference (p = 0.015, |d| = 0.11), TMT-B (p = 0.041, |d| = 1.96) and lower scores for the WCST perseverative responses (p = 0.007, |d| = 0.78), whereas the differences observed in women with GD and HCs were most significantly in attentional set-shifting.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence of gender compulsivity differences in GD. The results are relevant for improving current treatments by targeting specific compulsivity domains that can lead to more successful treatment options.
METHODS: The sample included 57 treatment-seeking adults with GD and 60 HCs recruited from the general population.
RESULTS: The pairwise comparisons showed a worse attentional set-shifting performance in women with GD than in men (total trials (p = 0.042, |d| = 0.56), perseverative responses (p = 0.001, |d| = 0.89), trails to complete the first category (p = 0.001, |d| = 0.78) and categories completed (p = 0.001, |d| = 0.98. Also, men with GD presented higher difficulties than HC men in the two assessed compulsivity domains (attentional bias and disengagement and attentional set-shifting; Stroop interference (p = 0.015, |d| = 0.11), TMT-B (p = 0.041, |d| = 1.96) and lower scores for the WCST perseverative responses (p = 0.007, |d| = 0.78), whereas the differences observed in women with GD and HCs were most significantly in attentional set-shifting.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence of gender compulsivity differences in GD. The results are relevant for improving current treatments by targeting specific compulsivity domains that can lead to more successful treatment options.