Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 5;20(1):46.
doi: 10.1186/s13722-025-00573-y.

Acceptability of the content and functionality of a just-in-time adaptive intervention for gambling problems: a mixed-methods evaluation of gambling habit hacker

S N Rodda  1   2 , S S Merkouris  3 , C J Greenwood  3 , A C Thomas  3 , D I Lubman  4   5 , N A Dowling  3
Affiliations

Acceptability of the content and functionality of a just-in-time adaptive intervention for gambling problems: a mixed-methods evaluation of gambling habit hacker

S N Rodda et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract. .

Abstract

Background: Just-In-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) offer real-time support to help individuals adhere to gambling expenditure goals. This mixed-methods study evaluated the acceptability of a JITAI called Gambling Habit Hacker, focusing on both the app’s content and functionality.

Methods: Australian participants who had recently completed a micro-randomized trial of the app provided feedback through semi-structured interviews. Acceptability was further assessed using app usage and engagement metrics, including registration, adherence to the ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocol, duration and timing of app use, and interaction with intervention content. Subscales of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) were also used. Intervention fidelity was evaluated by examining adherence to the EMA protocol, strategy selection, and action plan completion.

Results: Participants (n = 174) completed 4382 EMA entries over a 28-day period, averaging 25 EMAs each, with the highest completion rate observed in Week 1. Of those, 48% were micro-randomized to receive the intervention, and 80% of this group completed at least one intervention. Across the trial, participants created 1307 action and coping plans, most commonly focused on behaviour substitution, initiating rewards, or limiting access to cash. In the post-intervention survey (n = 141), participants reported increased awareness, knowledge, and shifts in attitudes toward gambling, exceeding minimally acceptable thresholds. Semi-structured interviews with 11 participants revealed two primary motivations for using the app: (1) goal setting with monitoring, and (2) goal adherence with an emphasis on managing urges. Qualitative and quantitative findings suggest future optimisation should include customising the timing and frequency of EMAs and adopting a hybrid push–pull approach to intervention delivery. Functionality improvements could also include the ability to save and adjust action plans in real time to enhance responsiveness in high-risk situations. Engagement may be further improved by incorporating additional lived experience content, such as videos and audio recordings.

Conclusion: Gambling Habit Hacker was found to be acceptable for providing support in adhering to gambling expenditure limits and, over time, reducing gambling spend. Future optimisation could improve its tailoring to individual needs and enhance user engagement.

Trial registration: This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000497707) and approved by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020 − 304).

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-025-00573-y.

Keywords: Ecological momentary intervention; Goal setting; Harm reduction; Implementation planning; Treatment; mHealth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations: The 3-year declaration of interest statement of this research team is as follows: In the last three years, all authors have received research and/or consultancy funding from multiple sources, including via hypothecated taxes from gambling revenue. SR has received research funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, New Zealand Ministry of Health, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, and New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling. SM has received research funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling, Gambling Research Australia, Health Research Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. She has been the recipient of a New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. CG is the recipient of an Alfred Deakin Post-Doctoral Fellowship. AT has received research funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and New Zealand Ministry of Health. DL has received research funding from the Victorian Department of health, National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, Australian Research Council, Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia (HCF) Research Foundation, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, and Wellcome Leap, as well as an investigator-led research grant from Camurus. ND has received research funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling, Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance, Gambling Research Australia, Svenska Spel’s Independent Research Council, Health Research Council of New Zealand, and New Zealand Ministry of Health. None of the authors have received research funding from the gambling, tobacco, or alcohol industries, or any industry-sponsored organisation. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This trial was approved by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020 − 304). Competing interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustrative gambling habit hacker screenshots
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Pfund RA, Ginley MK, Kim HS, Boness CL, Horn TL, Whelan JP. Cognitive-behavioral treatment for gambling harm: umbrella review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2023:102336. 10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102336 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yakovenko I, Quigley L, Hemmelgarn BR, Hodgins DC, Ronksley P. The efficacy of motivational interviewing for disordered gambling: systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2015;43:211–26. - PubMed
    1. Bijker R, Booth N, Merkouris SS, Dowling NA, Rodda SN. Global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Addiction. 2022;117(12):2972–85. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rodda SN, Merkouris SS, Abraham C, Hodgins DC, Cowlishaw S, Dowling NA. Therapist-delivered and self-help interventions for gambling problems: A review of contents. J Behav Addictions 2018:1–16. 10.4309/jgi.2021.47.1 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Der Maas M, Shi J, Elton-Marshall T, Hodgins DC, Sanchez S, Lobo DS, Hagopian S, Turner NE. Internet-based interventions for problem gambling: scoping review. JMIR Mental Health. 2019;6(1):e65. 10.4309/jgi.2020.45.6 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources