Problem gambling and family violence: Prevalence and patterns in treatment-seekers

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to explore the prevalence and patterns of family violence in treatment-seeking problem gamblers. Secondary aims were to identify the prevalence of problem gambling in a family violence victimisation treatment sample and to explore the relationship between problem gambling and family violence in other treatment-seeking samples. Clients from 15 Australian treatment services were systematically screened for problem gambling using the Brief Bio-Social Gambling Screen and for family violence using single victimisation and perpetration items adapted from the Hurt-Insulted-Threatened-Screamed (HITS): gambling services (n=463), family violence services (n=95), alcohol and drug services (n=47), mental health services (n=51), and financial counselling services (n=48). The prevalence of family violence in the gambling sample was 33.9% (11.0% victimisation only, 6.9% perpetration only, and 16.0% both victimisation and perpetration). Female gamblers were significantly more likely to report victimisation only (16.5% cf. 7.8%) and both victimisation and perpetration (21.2% cf. 13.0%) than male gamblers. There were no other demographic differences in family violence prevalence estimates. Gamblers most commonly endorsed their parents as both the perpetrators and victims of family violence, followed by current and former partners. The prevalence of problem gambling in the family violence sample was 2.2%. The alcohol and drug (84.0%) and mental health (61.6%) samples reported significantly higher rates of any family violence than the gambling sample, while the financial counselling sample (10.6%) reported significantly higher rates of problem gambling than the family violence sample. The findings of this study support substantial comorbidity between problem gambling and family violence, although this may be accounted for by a high comorbidity with alcohol and drug use problems and other psychiatric disorders. They highlight the need for routine screening, assessment and management of problem gambling and family violence in a range of services.

Full text

Short Communication
Problem gambling and family violence: Prevalence and patterns
in treatment-seekers
N.A. Dowling
a,b,c,
⁎, A.C. Jackson
b
, A. Suomi
b,d
,T.Lavis
e
,S.A.Thomas
f
,J.Patford
b
,P.Harvey
e
, M. Battersby
e
,
J. Koziol-McLain
g
,M.Abbott
h
, M.E. Bellringer
h
a
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia
b
Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre, University of Melbourne, Australia
c
School of PsychologicalSciences, Monash University, Australia
d
Centre for Gambling Research, The Australian National University, Australia
e
Flinders Human Behaviour & Health Research Unit, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Australia
f
Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre, Monash University, Australia
g
Trauma Research Centre, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
h
Gambling and Addictions Research Centre,Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
HIGHLIGHTS
•The prevalence of any family violence in treatment-seeking gamblers was 33.9%.
•Family violence victimisation prevalence was 27.0% and perpetration was 22.9%.
•Parents and current or former partners were the most common perpetrators and victims.
•Prevalence was higher in alcohol/drug (84.0%) and mental health (61.6%) services.
•The prevalence of problem gambling in the family violence sample was 2.2%.
abstractarticle info
Available online 10 July 2014
Keywords:
Problem gambling
Family violence
Domestic violence
Prevalence
Alcohol
Mental health
The primaryaim of this study was to explore the prevalence and patterns of familyviolence in treatment-seeking
problem gamblers. Secondary aims were to identify the prevalence of problem gambling in a family violence
victimisation treatment sample and to explore the relationship between problem gambling and family violence
in other treatment-seeking samples. Clients from 15 Australian treatment services were systematically screened
for problem gambling using the Brief Bio-Social Gambling Screen and for family violence using single
victimisation and perpetration items adapted from the Hurt-Insulted-Threatened-Screamed (HITS): gambling
services (n= 463), family violence services (n=95),alcoholanddrugservices(n= 47), mental health services
(n=51),andfinancial counselling services (n= 48). The prevalence of family violence inthe gamblingsample
was 33.9% (11.0% victimisation only, 6.9% perpetration only, and 16.0% both victimisation and perpetration).
Female gamblers were significantly more likely to report victimisation only (16.5% cf. 7.8%) and both
victimisation and perpetration (21.2% cf. 13.0%) than male gamblers. There were no other demographic differ-
ences in family violence prevalence estimates. Gamblers most commonly endorsed their parents as both the
perpetrators and victims of familyviolence,followed bycurrent and former partners. The prevalence of problem
gambling in the family violence sample was 2.2%. The alcohol and drug (84.0%) and mental health (61.6%)
samples reported significantly higher rates of any family violence than the gambling sample, while the financial
counselling sample (10.6%) reported significantly higher rates of problem gambling than the family violence
sample. The findings of this study support substantial comorbidity between problem gambling and family
violence, although this may be accounted for by a high comorbidity with alcohol and drug use problems and
other psychiatric disorders. They highlight the need for routine screening, assessment and management of
problem gambling and family violence in a range of services.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 1713–1717
⁎Corresponding authorat: Deakin University, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, MelbourneBurwood Campus, Building W, 221 Burwood Highway,Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia.
Tel.: +61 3 9244 5610; fax: +61 3 9244 6858.
E-mail address: nicki.dowling@deakin.edu.au (N.A. Dowling).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.07.006
0306-4603/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Addictive Behaviors

1. Introduction
Despitesomeequivocalfindings (Schluter, Bellringer, & Abbott,
2007; Schluter, Abbott, & Bellringer, 2008), there is growing evi-
dence that suggests a significant association between problem gam-
bling and family violence. Much of this evidence is derived from
studies estimating the prevalence of intimate partner violence
(IPV) in problem gambling samples. Despite considerable methodo-
logical differences, most of the studies in this area report past year or
lifetime IPV victimisation estimates ranging from 60% to 69%
(Echeburua, Gonzalez-Ortega, De Corral, & Polo-Lopez, 2011;
Kausch, Rugle, & Rowland, 2006; Korman et al., 2008). In contrast,
Raylu and Oei (2009) found that 7% of 440 treatment-seeking
problem gamblers in Australia reported “spouse assault”and 20%
reported “recent experience of family violence and intimidation”in
clinical interviews. There is also limited evidence that a significant
proportion (56%) of problem gamblers report past year IPV perpetra-
tion (Korman et al., 2008). Findings relating to gender differences in
these studies are mixed, with some indicating that women (100%)
are more likely to report lifetime abuse victimisation than men
(69%) (Kausch et al., 2006) and others indicating higher rates of inju-
ry perpetration by women (49%) than men (22%) (Korman et al.,
2008). Echeburua et al. (2011) also found that retirement and
“prolonged low”employment were independently related to IPV
victimisation in female pathological gamblers.
Other evidence is derived from studies investigating rates of
problem gambling in IPV offender samples from batterer interven-
tion programs in the US. These studies have identified rates of prob-
lem or pathological gambling ranging from 1 to 24% (Brasfield,
Shorey, Febres, Strong, & Stuart, 2011; Brasfield et al., 2012;
Rothman, Johnson, & Hemenway, 2006). Although these findings
suggest that problem gambling is likely over-represented in sam-
ples of IPV offenders, there are currently no prevalence estimates
of problem gambling in samples of individuals presenting to treat-
ment services for IPV or family violence victimisation experiences.
Given that alcohol and substance use disorders and psychiatric
disorders are highly comorbid with both problem gambling (Dowling
et al., in press; Lorains, Cowlishaw, & Thomas, 2011) and family violence
(Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lorenzo, 2002), there are surprisingly
few studies that explore their relationship in other treatment-
seeking samples. In a sample of 605 out-of-treatment female sub-
stance abusers, Cunningham-Williams, Abdallah, Callahan, and
Cottler (2007) found that problem gamblers were more likely to re-
port experiencing parental abuse in their childhoods than non-
problem gamblers.
Although this literature suggests that problem gambling and family
violence are highly comorbid, it is difficult to validly compare the rates
from the available studies as they are generally limited to IPV, employ
US samples, and fail to employ validated instruments. The primary
aim of the present study was to explore the prevalence and patterns
of family violence in an Australian sample of treatment-seeking
problem gamblers. Secondary aims were to identify the prevalence of
problem gambling in a family violence victimisation treatment sample
and explore the relationship between problem gambling and family
violence in other treatment-seeking samples.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
In this cross-sectional study, clients from 15 treatment services across
14 Australian agencies were systematically screened for problem gam-
bling and family violence: 8 gambling services (clients seeking treatment
for their own gambling problems) (n= 463), 2 family violence services
(clients seeking treatment for family violence victimisation) (n=95),2
alcohol and drug services (n= 47), 1 mental health services (n=51),
and 2 financial counselling services (n= 48). Most services were located
in Victoria (n= 11), with smaller numbers from Tasmania (n=3)and
South Australia (n= 1). Participating agencies administered the screen-
ing questions to all new clients at intake. Agencies screened for between
1 and 19 months (median = 4.0 months) and the number of clients
screened at each agency ranged from 9 to 199 (M= 47.2, SD = 52.7,
median = 24). Data were collected from August 2009 to March 2012.
The resulting sample comprised 704 clients (364 men, 320 women, 20
unspecified) ranging in age from 18 to 79 (Table 1). The project was
approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Com-
mittee (0838146) and the Victorian Department of Justice Human Re-
search Ethics Committees (1119644).
2.2. Measures
The Brief Bio-Social Gambling Screen (BBGS; Gebauer, LaBrie, &
Shaffer, 2010) was employed to measure past year problem gambling.
The BBGS displays high sensitivity (0.96) and high specificity (0.99) in
identifying pathological gamblers assessed using the DSM-IV-TR diag-
nostic criteria in the AUDADIS-IV in a survey of a nationally representa-
tive US sample (Gebauer et al., 2010). The BBGS was selected due to its
brevity, psychometric properties, and ability to measure problem
gambling using few items over a 12-month timeframe. The 4-item
Hurt-Insulted-Threaten-Screamed (HITS; Sherin, Sinacore, Li, Zitter, &
Shakil, 1998)wasmodified into single items measuring past year family
violence victimisation (In the past twelve months, has a family member
physically hurt you, insulted or talked down to you, threatened you with
harm,orscreamedorcursedatyou?) and perpetration (In the past twelve
months, have you physically hurt a family member, insulted or talked down
to a family member, threatened a family member with harm, or screamed or
cursed at a family member?). Participants were provided with a defini-
tion of family members and those endorsing either item were asked
to specify their relationship to the relevant immediate or extended
family member(s). The original HITS displays high internal consis-
tency (α= .80) and good concurrent and construct validity
(Sherin et al., 1998). The HITS was selected due to its brevity, psy-
chometric properties, and its ability to be converted into a brief
screening tool that measures violence extending beyond intimate
partners and for perpetration experiences (see Rabin, Jennings,
Campbell,&Bair-Merritt,2009;Thompson,Basile,Hertz,&Sitterle,
2006). The items were modified into single items to reduce partici-
pant burden during the screening process.
2.3. Data analysis
Past year point prevalence estimates were calculated for the propor-
tion of each sample completing each screening instrument. Although
only one participant failed to complete the BBGS (0.1%), there was more
missing data for the HITS victimisation (8.4%) and perpetration (9.0%)
screens. Victimisation data was missing from 43.8% of the participants
from the financial counselling service sample, 22.1% of the participants
from the family violence services, 19.1% of participants from the alcohol
and drug services, 17.7% of participants from the mental health services,
and 1.2% of participants from the gambling services. Similarly, perpetra-
tion data was missing from 43.8% of the participants from the financial
counselling services, 25.3% of participants from the family violence
services, 21.6% of participants from the mental health services, 21.3% of
participants from the alcohol and drug services, and 1.2% of participants
from the gambling services. More women than expected were missing
data for both victimisation (χ
2
(2, 688) = 11.53, p= .004) and per-
petration (χ
2
(2, 688) = 14.70, p= .006), but there were no other
demographic markers for missing data. Demographic differences in
family violence estimates in the problem gambling sample were
compared using chi-square analyses (with follow-up adjusted
standardised residuals [ASRs N2]) and independent samples t-tests.
Chi-square analyses were employed to examine any significant group
1714 N.A. Dowling et al. / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 1713–1717

differences on family violence and problem gambling between different
treatment-seeking samples.
3. Results
3.1. Gambling sample
The prevalence of family violence in the gambling sample was 27.0%
for victimisation, 22.9% for perpetration, and 33.9% for any form of fam-
ily violence (Table 2). Women were significantly more likely to report
victimisation than men (RR = 1.8, χ
2
(2,463) = 15.52, pb.001).
When mutually exclusive family violence groups were explored
(Table 2), there was a significant sex difference across the groups (χ
2
(6,463) = 19.38, p=.007),withsignificantly more women than men
reporting victimisation only (RR = 2.1) and both forms of violence
(RR = 1.6). The remaining demographic variables (age, country of
birth, relationship status, and household status) were not significantly
associated with either victimisation or perpetration. Participants
endorsing victimisation identified between 1 and 7 of their family
members as perpetrators of that violence (median = 1). They were
their parents (31.9%), current partners (21.8%), former partners
(15.1%), siblings (11.2%), children (10.2%), in-laws (5.9%), and extended
family members (4.2%). Participants endorsing perpetration identified
between 1 and 6 of their family members as victims of that violence
(median = 1). They were their parents (31.9%), current partners
(27.3%), former partners (12.1%), siblings (10.2%), children (17.4%),
in-laws (3.3%), and extended family members (0.9%).
3.2. Other treatment-seeking samples
The prevalence of problem gambling in the family violence services
was 2.2% (Table 2). It was not possible to explore the relationships be-
tween problem gambling and family violence in the other three services
due to the small numbers of screened problem gamblers in these ser-
vices (Table 2). However, examinationof Ta ble 2 reveals thatthe alcohol
and drug sample reported significantly higher rates of family violence
victimisation (RR = 2.0, χ
2
(1,495) = 22.84, pb.001), perpetration
(RR = 2.2, χ
2
(1,495) = 36.78, pb.001), and any form of family vio-
lence (RR = 2.5, χ
2
(1,494) = 36.74, pb.001) than the gambling sam-
ple. The mental health sample also reported significantly higher rates of
family violence victimisation (RR = 2.3, χ
2
(1,499) = 23.19, pb.001)
and any form of family violence (RR = 1.8, χ
2
(1,496) = 12.13, p=
.004) than the gambling sample. In contrast, the financial counselling
sample reported significantly higher rates of problem gambling than the
family violence sample (RR = 4.8, χ
2
(1,141) = 5.05, p= .04).
4. Discussion
The rate of family violence victimisation in the current sample of
problem gamblers (27.0%) was half than those of most previous IPV
studies (60–69%) (Echeburua et al., 2011; Kausch et al., 2006; Korman
et al., 2008). It is, however, more consistent with the rates identified in
the only available Australian study (Raylu & Oei, 2009).Therateoffamily
violence perpetration in the current sample of problem gamblers
(22.9%) was also half that identified in previous IPV research (56%)
Table 1
Summary of demographic characteristics of the study treatment-seeking samples.
Demographic characteristic Gambling services
(n= 463)
Family violence services
(n= 95)
Alcohol and drug services
(n= 47)
Mental health services
(n= 51)
Financial counselling
services (n= 48)
Total sample
(n= 704)
Male (%) 63.1 35.6 40.4 26.7 22.9 52.9
Age (M, SD) 40.8 (12.6) 38.4 (11.4) 41.6 (12.0) 38.3 (11.7) 41.7 (14.0) 40.5 (12.5)
Australian born (%) 73.3 91.8 83.0 86.7 70.8 77.0
Relationship status (%)
Single, not in a relationship 46.6 25.6 55.3 28.9 60.5 44.0
Living with partner 39.8 41.0 36.8 44.4 15.8 17.3
Not living with partner 13.6 33.3 7.9 26.7 23.7 38.6
Household status (%)
Couple with children 27.1 25.6 25.6 40.0 13.5 26.9
One parent family 9.5 26.9 20.5 22.2 51.4 16.4
Couple with no children 14.1 11.5 10.3 13.3 8.1 13.0
Single person household 24.7 16.7 41.0 13.3 18.9 23.4
Group/share household 24.7 19.2 2.6 11.1 8.1 20.2
Table 2
Prevalence of past year problem gambling and family violence (FV) across treatment services.
Screen
a
Gambling services (%; CI 95%) Family violence
services
(%; CI 95%)
Alcohol & drug
services
(%; CI 95%)
Mental health
services
(%; CI 95%)
Financial
counselling
services (%; CI 95%)
Men Women Total
FV victimisation 20.8 (15.6–24.9) 37.6
d
(29.3–44.2) 27.0 (22.1–30.2)
c
54.1
e
(36.2–65.9) 61.9
e
(46.6–77.2) 37.0 (17.8–56.5)
FV perpetration 20.8 (15.6–24.9) 26.5 (18.6–32.0) 22.9 (18.2–25.8)
c
49.3
e
(38.4–68.0) 32.5 (17.3–45.2) 33.3 (14.3–50.2)
Any form of FV 28.7 (23.0–33.4) 43.0 (34.6–49.8) 33.9 (29.0–37.6)
c
84.0
e
(68.9–95.9) 61.6
e
(45.6–77.5) 48.1 (28.1–68.3)
Problem gambling
bb b
2.2 (−0.1–5.1) 4.3 (−0.2–10.3) 2.0 (−0.2–5.9) 10.6
f
(1.5–20.2)
Mutually exclusive FV
groups
FV victimisation only 7.8 (4.8–11.1) 16.5
d
(11.1–22.6) 11.0 (8.3–14.1)
c
16.2 (3.8–28.9) 28.2 (13.4–43.0) 14.8 (4.9–29.1)
FV perpetration only 7.8 (4.8–11.1) 5.3 (1.9–8.9) 6.9 (4.8–9.5)
c
18.9 (5.7–32.2) 2.6 (−2.6–7.8) 11.1 (−1.6–23.8)
FV victimisation &
perpetration
13.0 (3.6–12.2) 21.2
d
(13.8–26.1) 16.0 (11.7–18.2)
c
48.9 (31.8–65.5) 30.8 (15.6–45.9) 22.2 (5.5–39.0)
a
Base sample sizes vary due to missing data (see data analysis section).
b
Gambling programs did not administer the BBGS.
c
Family violence programs did not administer the HITS.
d
Significant gender difference in problem gambling sample (pb.05).
e
Significant difference with family violence estimates in comparison to problem gambling sample (pb.05).
f
Significant difference between problem gambling estimate in comparison to family violence sample (pb.05).
1715N.A. Dowling et al. / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 1713–1717

(Korman et al., 2008). While the rates may reflect lower prevalence in
Australia relative to other jurisdictions, they may also reflect the use of
the adapted HITS items that measured multiple forms of violence in
single items and did not measure some forms of violence, such as sexual
violence. Because the complexity of family violence presentations is
poorly captured by current screening instruments that tend to comprise
too many items to be usefully employed in screening or focus on
intimate partner victimisation experiences (see Rabin et al., 2009;
Thompson et al., 2006), future research may benefit from the further
development and validation of brief screens for violence extending
beyond intimate partners and for perpetration experiences. Finally,
this study is the first to examine the prevalence of problem gambling
in individuals seeking assistance related to familyviolence victimisation
(2.2%).
Although the failure to employ a community-based control group
precludes definitive conclusions about these estimates relative to the
general population, the past year family violence victimisation rate in
gambling treatment services (27.0%) was 25 times higher than the
past year physical and/or sexual IPV victimisation rate (1.1%), and 7
times higher than the past year emotional IPV victimisation rate
(3.8%), in the Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2013). Similarly, the rate of past year problem gambling in family
violencevictimisation treatment services (2.2%) was 2 to 4 times higher
than in the Australian population (0.5–1.0%) (Jackson, Wynne, Dowling,
Tomnay, & Thomas, 2010). Although these comparisons are not entirely
valid as different definitions and measures of problem gambling and
family violence were employed, they suggest that further investigation
of the relationship between problem gambling and family violence is
warranted.
The highest proportion of the gambling sample reported both
family violence victimisation and perpetration, raising the possibili-
ty of reciprocal violence occurring in problem gambling families
(Suomi et al., 2013). Consistent with Kausch et al. (2006),women
were 2.1 times more likely to report victimisation only and 1.6
times more likely to report both victimisation and perpetration
than men. Although this study provides an acontextual acts-based
measurement of family violence (Taft, Hegarty, & Flood, 2001), the
finding that nearly half of female problem gamblers report some
form of family violence suggest that this group of service users
should be specifically targeted for screening, assessment and man-
agement. Finally, the parents, partners, and former partners of the
gamblers were most commonly endorsed as both perpetrators and
victims of family violence. Evidence of high rates of family violence
victimisation and perpetration by the parents of problem gamblers
has also been noted in a study investigating the prevalence of family
violence in a small sample of the family members of problem gam-
blers (Suomi et al., 2013). Moreover, there are findings to suggest
that parents of problem gamblers report equivalent financial, emo-
tional, social life, employment, and physical health impacts to
partners (Dowling, Rodda, Lubman, & Jackson, 2014). Although the
precise nature of the relationship between problem gambling and
family violence remains unknown, preliminary findings have sug-
gested that problem gambling precedes both victimisation and per-
petration of family violence (Suomi et al., 2013). This implies that
gambling-related stressors, such as the loss of family financial re-
sources, abdication of family role responsibilities, mistrust, and
poor communication may result in chronic family stress, domestic
conflict, and the perpetration of violence by parents and partners
(Echeburua et al., 2011; Korman et al., 2008) and that gambling
losses and other problems may result in the manifestation of stress,
anger, and financial crisis within the home and lead to the perpetra-
tion of violence by the proble mgambler against parents and partners
(Afifi, Brownridge, MacMillan, & Sareen, 2010; Korman et al., 2008;
Muelleman, DenOtter, Wadman, Tran, & Anderson, 2002). Regard-
less of the nature of the relationship, the findings that parents are in-
volved highlights the importance of studying violence that extends
into problem gambling families beyond intimate partners and chil-
dren (Jackson, 2003; Ulman & Straus, 2003).
The findings of this study underscore the need that other services,
such alcohol and drug services, mental health services, and financial
counselling services, should develop screening, referral and manage-
ment protocols for problem gambling and family violence. The rate of
problem gambling in the financial counselling sample was 4.8 times
higher than that in the family violence sample while the rates of family
violence in the alcohol and drug and mental health samples were 1.8 to
2.5 times higher than those in the problem gambling sample. The high
rates of family violence in clients attending alcohol and drug services
and mental health services are not unexpected, given there is substan-
tial evidence that family violence is highly comorbid with alcohol and
drug use problems and mental health issues (Krug et al., 2002). Howev-
er, problem gamblingis also highly comorbid with alcohol and drug use
problems and psychiatric comorbidities (Dowling et al., in press; Lorains
et al., 2011). It is therefore possible that the rates of family violence
observed in the problem gambling treatment sample may reflect an
association of family violence with alcohol and substance use problems
or psychiatric comorbidity, rather than any specific association with
gambling problems. There is evidence that alcohol and substance use
problems and psychiatric comorbidity exacerbate the relationship
between problem gambling and family violence (Afifi et al., 2010;
Brasfield et al., 2011, 2012; Goldstein, Walton, Cunningham, Resko,
& Duan, 2009; Kausch et al., 2006; Leiseur & Rothschild, 1989;
Muelleman et al., 2002). However, there are some conflicting findings
with some studies failing to report these associations (Echeburua
et al., 2011; Korman et al., 2008; Schluter, Abbott, & Bellringer, 2008).
Moreover, approximately two-thirds ofthe family members of problem
gamblers report there is an association between problem gambling and
family violence (Muelleman et al., 2002; Suomi et al., 2013). The
findings of this study therefore highlight the need for further research
investigating the role of alcohol and substance use problems and mental
health problems in the relationship between problem gambling and
family violence.
The findings of this study support substantial comorbidity between
problem gambling and family violence, although this may be accounted
for by a high comorbidity with alcohol and drug use problems and other
psychiatric disorders. Further research, including prospective studies,
are needed to advance our understanding of the relationships between
problem gambling, family violence, and these psychiatric comorbidities.
Although the achieved rates of screening in these samples are superior
to average rates of clinician-administered screening for alcohol, drug,
and mental health problems (Edlund, Unutzer, & Wells, 2004; Groves
et al., 2010), it is unlikely that agencies screened every client and
there was a considerable amount of missing family violence data. This
indicates future replication with researcher-administered screening is
warranted. The findings of this study can, however, inform specific
approaches to prevention and intervention efforts and responsible
gambling and violence prevention policies. They highlight the need for
routine screening, assessment and management of family violence in
problem gambling services and gambling problems in family violence
services.
Role of funding sources
This research was funded by the Aust ralian Research Council (Linka ge Grant LP
0989331) with the Office for Problem Gambling, South Australia and Drummond Street
Services, Vict oria as industry partners; and the Problem Gambling Re search and
Treatment Centre at the University of Melbourne.
Contributors
AJ, ND and ST designed the study; ND wrote the first draft of the manuscript; AS, TL,
and JP wereinvolved in data collection; andAS project managedand led the data analysis.
All authorscontributed to and approved the final manuscript and all meet the NH & MRC
guidelines for authorship.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
1716 N.A. Dowling et al. / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 1713–1717

Acknowledgements
This research wa s funded by the Australian Research Council (Linkag e Grant LP
0989331) with the Office for Problem Gambling, South Australia and Drummond Street
Services, Victoria as industry partne rs; and the Problem Gamb ling Research and
Treatment Centr e at the University of Melbour ne. The research te am would like to
acknowledge th e effort of the parti cipating agenci es in Victoria, Sou th Australia and
Tasmania, and the clients who participated in the study.
References
Afifi, T. O., Brownridge, D. A., MacMilla n, H., & Sareen, J. (20 10). The relationship of
gambling to inti mate partner viol ence and child maltreatment in a nationally
representative sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research,44(5), 331–337.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). Personal safety, Australia, 2012. Available:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats
Brasfield,H.,Febres,J.,Shorey,R.,Strong,D.,Ninnemann,A.,Elmquist,J.,etal.(2012).Male
batterers' alcohol use and gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies,28,77–88.
Brasfield, H., Shorey, R., Febres, J., Strong, D., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). Hazardous gambling
among women court-mandated to batterer intervention programs. American Journal
on Addictions,20(2), 176–177.
Cunningham-Williams, R. M., Abdallah, A. B., Callahan, C., & Cottler, L. (2007). Problem
gambling and viol ence among commu nity-recruite d female substance abusers.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,21(2), 239–243.
Dowling,N.A.,Cowlishaw,S.,Jackson,A.C.,Merkouris,S.S.,Francis,K.L.,&Christensen,D.R.
(2014). The prevalence of comorbid personality disorders in treatment-seeking
problem gamble rs: A systemati c review and meta -analysis. Journal of Personality
Disorders (in press).
Dowling, N. A., Rodda, S. N., Lubman, D.I., & Jackson, A.C. (2014). The impacts of problem
gambling on concerned significant othersaccessing web-based counselling. Addictive
Behaviors,39(8), 1253–1257.
Echeburua, E., Gonzalez-Ortega, I., De Corral, P., & Polo-Lopez, R. (2011). Clinical gender
differences among adult pathological gamblers seeking treatment. Journal of
Gambling Studies,27(2), 215–227.
Edlund, M. J., Unutzer, J., & Wells, K. B. (2004). Clinician screening and treatment of
alcohol, drug, and mental pro blems in primary care: Results from healthcare for
communities. Medical Care,42(2), 1158–1166.
Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R.,& Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accura-
cy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers
in the general household population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,55(2), 82.
Goldstein, A. L., Walton, M.A., Cunningham, R. M., Resko, S. M., & Duan, L. (2009).
Correlates of gam bling among youth in an inner-city eme rgency department.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,23(1), 113–121.
Groves, P., Pick, S., Davis, P., Cloudesley, R., Cooke, R., Forsythe, M., et al. (2010). Routine
alcohol screening and brief inte rventions in general hospital in -patient wards:
Acceptability and barriers. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy,17(1), 55–71.
Jackson, D. (2003). Broadening constructions of family violence: Mothers' perspectives of
aggression from their children. Child and Family Social Work,8(4), 321–329.
Jackson, A.C., Wynne, H., Dowling, N. A., Tomnay, J. E., & Thomas, S. A. (2010). Using the
CPGI to determine problem gambling prevalence in Australia: Measurement issues.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,8(4), 570–582.
Kausch, O., Rugle, L., & Rowland, D. Y. ( 2006). Lifetime histories of trauma among
pathological gamblers. The American Journal on Addictions,15(1), 35–43.
Korman, L. M., Collins, J., Dutton, D., Dhayananthan, B., Littman-Sharp, N., & Skinner, W.
(2008). Proble m gambling and intimate partner violence. Journal of Gambling
Studies,24(1), 13–23.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L.,Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lorenzo, R. (Eds.). (2002). World report
on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Leiseur, H. R., & Rothschild, J. (1989). Children of Gamblers Anonymous members. Journal
of Gambling Behavior,5(4), 269–281.
Lorains, F. K., Cowlishaw, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2011). Prevalence of comorbid disorders in
problem and pathological gambling: Systematic reviewand meta-analysis of popula-
tion surveys. Addiction,106(3), 490–498.
Muelleman, R. L., DenOtter, T., Wadman, M. C., Tran, T. P., & Anderson, J. (2002). Problem
gambling in the partner of the emergency department patient as a risk factor for
intimate partner violence. Journal of Emergency Medicine,23(3), 307–312.
Rabin, R. F., Jennings, J. M., Campbell, J. C., & Bair-Merritt, M. H. (2009). Intimate partner
violence screening tools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,36(5), 439–445.
Raylu, N., & Oei, T. S. (2009). Factorsassociated with the severity of gambling problems in
a community gambling treatment agency. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction,7(1), 124–137.
Rothman,E. F., Johnson, R. M.,& Hemenway, D. (2006).Gun possession amongMassachu-
setts batterer intervention program enrollees. Evaluation Review,30(3), 283–295.
Schluter, P. J., Abbott, M. W., & Bellringer, M. E. (2008). Problem gambling related to
intimate partne r violence: Findi ngs from the Pacific Islands Families st udy.
Internatio nal Gambl ing Studies,8(1), 49–61.
Schluter, P., Bellringer, M., & Abbott, M. (2007 ). Maternal gambling associat ed with
families' food, shelter, and safety needs: Findings from the Pacific Islands Families
study. Journal of Gambling Issues,19,87–90.
Sherin, K. M., Sinacore, J. M., Li, X. Q.,Zitter, R. E., & Shakil, A. (1998). HITS: A short domes-
tic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Family Medicine,30(7),
508–512.
Suomi,A.,Jackson,A.C.,Dowling,N.A.,Lavis,T.,Patford,J.,Thomas,S.A.,etal.(2013).Prob-
lem gambling and family violence: Family member reports of prevalence, family im-
pacts and family coping. Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health,3(1), 1–15.
Taft, A., Hegarty, K., & Flood, M. (2001). Are men and women equally violent to intimate
partners? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,25(6), 498–500.
Thompson,M. P., Basile, K. C., Hertz, M. F., & Sitterle, D. (2006). Measuring intimat e partner
violence victimization and perpetration: A compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta
(GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Preven-
tion and Control.
Ulman, A., & Straus, M.A. (2003). Violence by children against mothe rs in relation to
violence between parents and corporal punishment by parents. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies,34(1), 41–60.
1717N.A. Dowling et al. / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 1713–1717