• DOI:10.1177/070674370505000804
• Corpus ID: 2096562

Prevalence of Pathological Gambling in Quebec in 2002

@article{Ladouceur2005PrevalenceOP,
  title={Prevalence of Pathological Gambling in Quebec in 2002},
  author={Robert Ladouceur and Christian Jacques and Serge Chevalier and Serge S{\'e}vigny and Denis Hamel},
  journal={The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry},
  year={2005},
  volume={50},
  pages={451 - 456}
}

• R. Ladouceur, C. Jacques, +2 authors D. Hamel
• Published 1 July 2005
• Medicine
• The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Objective: To assess gambling behaviours and the problems associated with pathological gambling among the adult population of Quebec in 2002. Method: In Phase 1 of this 2-phase study, a total sample of 8842 adults was assessed. We used the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), adapted for telephone interview, to assess one-half of the sample; the other one-half was evaluated with the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). In the study's second phase, we compared the classifications obtained from these screening instruments with classifications obtained by a psychologist using a semistructured clinical telephone interview. Results: The results indicate that the prevalence of pathological gambling in 2002 (at which time 0.8% of the adult population were classified as probable pathological gamblers) did not differ from the proportion obtained in 1996 (1.0%), despite the significant decrease in gambling participation in 2002 (81% vs 90% in 1996). The most popular gambling activities were buying lottery tickets (68%), participating in fundraising draws (40%), gambling in casinos (18%), playing cards with family or with friends (10%), playing bingo (9%), and playing video lotteries (8%). The findings obtained from the SOGS and the CPGI revealed that the 2 instruments perform similarly when identifying pathological gambling prevalence. However, the results of the semistructured clinical telephone interviews differed from the results obtained with the screening instruments: 82% of the gamblers initially identified as probable pathological gamblers by the SOGS or the CPGI were not confirmed by a clinical interview. Conclusion: The discrepancy between the results of the screening questionnaires and the clinical evaluation is significant, and this difference needs to be addressed before further cross-sectional or longitudinal studies are conducted.