Exploratory mixed-methods study investigates reasons for early disengagement in gambling treatment, suggesting strategies for improved retention.
Early disengagement may undermine the effectiveness of evidence-based gambling treatment, yet limited research has examined why clients disengage and how services can better support retention. This exploratory mixed-methods study investigated reasons for early disengagement, its potential consequences for clients, and practical strategies to improve retention in real-world gambling services. Data were drawn from a two-timepoint client survey (pre-treatment and one-month follow-up), and a practitioner survey and hui (group discussion), capturing complementary perspectives. Participants were 67 clients (Mage=36.7; 59.7% male; 91.0% with mild-to-extreme gambling symptom severity) and 15 practitioners (Mage=48.3; 20.0% male; 66.7% counsellors) from New Zealand gambling specialist services. Across clients and practitioners, common reasons for early disengagement included logistical barriers, low motivation and external support, co-occurring mental health issues, concern about missing gambling, and gambling-related financial stress. Practitioners also highlighted early goal attainment, non-linear engagement, and systemic barriers. At follow-up, early disengagement was generally associated with making less gains in gambling, psychological, and broader addiction outcomes and greater professional help-seeking for non-gambling issues, compared with clients who completed or remained in treatment. Practitioners noted, however, that even brief engagement can build insight and readiness for future help-seeking. Clients and practitioners identified multi-level strategies to strengthen early retention, centred on relational quality (e.g., empathy, motivational style, peer/group support), proactive contact (e.g., welcome calls, reminders), service flexibility (e.g., multiple delivery formats, after-hours options), and workforce capacity (e.g., culturally responsive training). These findings provide a foundation for future research to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of treatment retention strategies in routine care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hawker et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: