A systematic review and meta-analysis by Goslar et al. (2017) «Goslar M, Leibetseder M, Muench HM ym. Efficacy of...»1 analysed the efficacy of all types of psychological face-to-face and self-guided treatments. 27 randomised controlled studies were included. 16 implemented FTFTs containing 27 comparisons, and 11 studies used SGTs containing 22 comparisons.

Among FTFTs, most studies implemented CBT and combined CBT strategies delivered through individual and group settings in equal shares. The total number of hours spent in FTFTs ranged from 10 min to 24 hr (M= 12.23 hr, SD = 9.01). SGTs typically implemented SH formats (CBT-based WBs and PFB) delivered over the Internet, and without therapist support.

The results revealed significantly higher effect sizes for face-to-face treatments (16 studies with Hedges's g ranging from 0.67 to 1.15) as compared with self-guided treatments (11 studies with Hedges's g ranging from 0.12 to 0.30) regarding the reduction of problematic gambling behavior. The intensity of treatment moderated the therapy effect, particularly for self-guided treatments.

FTFTs versus SGTs. The comparisons between the two treatment modalities at posttreatment showed significantly larger effect sizes for FTFTs regarding the reduction of global severity (Qbetween = 6.92, df = 1, p < .01), frequency (Qbetween =23.38, df = 1, p < .001), and financial loss (Qbetween = 22.74, df = 1, p < .001).

Authors conclude that face-to-face treatments are more efficient compared to self-guided treatments for the reduction of disordered gambling.

• Quality of study: high
• Applicability: Patients in Finland may differ from patients included in international studies. There are currently no studies available in the Finnish cultural context.
• Comment: There were no head-to-head comparisons in this analysis. The overall quality of included studies were moderate to high.