International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Motherhood and Treatment Outcome in Female Patients with Compulsive Buying–Shopping Disorder Gemma Mestre-Bach 1 , Roser Granero 2,3,4 , Gemma Casalé-Salayet 5 , Fernando Fernández-Aranda 2,4,6,7 , Astrid Müller 8 , Matthias Brand 9,10 , Mónica Gómez-Peña 4,6 , Laura Moragas 4,6 , Isabel Sánchez 2,4,6 , Lucía Camacho-Barcia 2,4,6 , Alejandro Villena 11 , Milagros L. Lara-Huallipe 4,6 and Susana Jiménez-Murcia 2,4,6,7, * 1 Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, 26006 Logroño, Spain; gemma.mestre@unir.net 2 Ciber Fisiopatología Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERObn), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28015 Madrid, Spain; roser.granero@uab.cat (R.G.); ffernandez@bellvitgehospital.cat (F.F.-A.); isasanchez@bellvitgehospital.cat (I.S.); lcamacho@idibell.cat (L.C.-B.) 3 Departament de Psicobiologia i Metodologia de les Ciències de la Salut, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain 4 Psychoneurobiology of Eating and Addictive Behaviors Group, Neurosciences Programme, Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), 08908 Barcelona, Spain; monicagomez@bellvitgehospital.cat (M.G.-P.); lmoragas@bellvitgehospital.cat (L.M.); milagroslizbeth.lh@gmail.com (M.L.L.-H.) 5 CPB-Serveis de Salut Mental, 08013 Barcelona, Spain; gcasale@cpbssm.org 6 Department of Psychiatry, Bellvitge University Hospital, 08907 Barcelona, Spain Citation: Mestre-Bach, G.; 7 Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Granero, R.; Casalé-Salayet, G.; 08007 Barcelona, Spain Fernández-Aranda, F.; Müller, A.; 8 Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Brand, M.; Gómez-Peña, M.; 30625 Hannover, Germany; mueller.astrid@mh-hannover.de 9 General Psychology: Cognition and Center for Behavioral Addiction Research (CeBAR), Moragas, L.; Sánchez, I.; Camacho-Barcia, L.; et al. University of Duisburg-Essen, 47057 Duisburg, Germany; matthias.brand@uni-due.de 10 Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 45141 Essen, Germany Motherhood and Treatment Outcome 11 Unidad Sexología Clínica y Salud Sexual, Consulta Dr. Carlos Chiclana, 28003 Madrid, Spain; in Female Patients with Compulsive alejandrovillena@doctorcarloschiclana.com Buying–Shopping Disorder. Int. J. * Correspondence: sjimenez@bellvitgehospital.cat; Tel.: +34-9-326079 Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Abstract: Motherhood has been proposed as an internal facilitating factor for the recovery of women with ijerph19127075 mental disorders. However, at the same time, there are significant barriers that may be interfering with Academic Editor: José the access and adherence to treatment for these women. The present longitudinal study aimed to deepen Manuel Otero-López the sociodemographic and clinical profile of women with children and compulsive buying–shopping Received: 14 March 2022 disorder (CBSD), and to explore the association between motherhood and response to treatment. The total Accepted: 6 June 2022 sample included 77 women with a diagnosis of CBSD (n = 49 mothers) who received cognitive behavioral Published: 9 June 2022 therapy (CBT) for 12 weeks. No association between psychopathology and motherhood was observed. The group of mothers reported an older age of onset of the CBSD, a lower amount of money spent per Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in compulsive-buying episode, and a higher likelihood of family support for the CBSD. Moreover, this group published maps and institutional affil- showed lower risk of relapse. The findings support the theoretical proposal that considers motherhood as iations. an internal facilitating factor for recovery and treatment adherence of mothers with addictions. Keywords: compulsive buying disorder; motherhood; women; cognitive behavioral therapy; compliance; relapse; dropout Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 1. Introduction conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Motherhood is a complex state that has been underexplored in mental health. Initial creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ studies show, on the one hand, that parenting may be considered as a very relevant moti- 4.0/). vation for seeking treatment and improving health behaviors in women [1,2]. Therefore, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127075 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 2 of 11 motherhood has been considered as an internal facilitating factor, given that most women with mental illnesses report the desire to be good mothers and to take care of their children in the best possible way [1]. Consequently, those mothers who are able to fully identify with the parenting role may be more likely to experience an effective recovery [3]. On the other hand, mothers with mental illness’s successful recovery usually includes multiple aspects, such as improved self-care, involvement in treatment programs, and reconstruction of one’s identity [4–6]. However, there are several specific barriers that mothers may face when striving for recovery. Mothers with mental disorders may have difficulties in accessing essential resources, such as maintaining housing, obtaining child- care, and finding and retaining employment [7]. In addition, many mothers avoid making their pathology public and, consequently, do not seek treatment due to the associated stigma, or even for fear of losing custody of their child [8]. In addition, the lack of gender- sensitive treatment and other facilitating resources, such as childcare, prevent some women from feeling supported and engaging in existing treatment programs [9,10]. Finally, it is necessary to consider various structural problems, such as the time needed for clinical appointments and the treatment costs [1]. Regarding addictions, few previous studies have evaluated the specific role of mother- hood. They have suggested that motherhood may be a motivating factor in recovering from substance use disorder, although it may also be a barrier due to fear of possible negative consequences, such as the loss of custody of their child [11,12]. However, this aspect has not been extensively studied in behavioral addictions. Gavriel-Fried and Ajzenstadt [13] reported that, in the case of mothers with gambling disorder, they retain control of their ma- ternal duties while, at the same time, engaging in gambling behavior. In fact, they tended to maintain gambling behaviors since, among other aspects, their maternal role was well covered, and their responsibilities were not neglected. Suchman, DeCoste, McMahon, and Dalton [14] observed that 71–75% of mothers attended their clinical appointments, and that the most common reasons for dropout were relapse, transportation problems, family issues, and relocation. In the case of compulsive buying–shopping disorder (CBSD), understood as a behavioral addiction characterized by repetitive, irresistible, and overpowering urges to purchase goods which consequently generate severe distress or interference, most indi- viduals who have this clinical condition are women [15–17]. Therefore, motherhood could have a specific impact on the psychotherapeutic treatment response of women with CBSD. Multiple approaches have been proposed for CBSD, both via pharmacological (i.e., citalopram, escitalopram, and fluvoxamine) and psychological (i.e., psychodynamic psychotherapy, behavioral approaches, and cognitive-behavioral interventions) approaches. Of all of these interventions, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) appears to be particularly effective in reducing the associated distress of CBSD, with long-lasting effects [18]. In order to explore the role of motherhood in CBSD treatment outcome, the present study had the following aims: (1) to compare the sociodemographic and clinical profile of mothers and childless women with CBSD; and (2) to determine whether motherhood has a positive or negative impact on the treatment response by assessing dropout, relapse, and therapy compliance. It was hypothesized that, as proposed by other authors [1], motherhood will be a facilitating factor for treatment response that will outweigh the barriers faced by women with children and CBSD. Therefore, compared to those who do not have any children, we hypothesize that mothers will obtain lower rates of dropout, relapse, as well as higher compliance. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants A sample of n = 77 treatment-seeking patients with CBSD from the Department of Psychiatry at a University Hospital, recruited between March 2005 and June 2015, was considered. Participants were voluntarily referred to the Gambling Disorder and Other Behavioral Addictions Unit through general practitioners or other healthcare professionals, such as psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and social workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 3 of 11 Participants with additional mental disorders (i.e., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other psychotic disorders) or intellectual disability were excluded from the study. The screening was performed through a structured interview by experienced clinicians before the treatment. These same therapists carried out the CBT program. 2.2. Treatment 2.2.1. Main Elements of the Treatment Program The CBT program protocol for pathological gambling and other behavioral addictions has been previously described in detail [19], and its short and medium-term effectiveness has been reported in gambling disorder [20], as well as in CBSD [21,22]. The individual intervention for CBSD consisted of 12 weekly 45-min CBT sessions for outpatients. The program covered different general topics, including psychoeducation about the disorder (diagnostic definition, vulnerability factors, biopsychosocial models, disorder development and stages, etc.), together with stimulus control, such as money management and other potential triggers of relapse and alternative and compensatory behaviors. CBT also in- cluded the replacement of CBSD-associated behaviors for new healthy ones, and cognitive restructuring focused on illustrating and rectifying false illusions of control over compul- sive buying. During the intervention, clinicians also worked on self-reinforcement, skills training, and relapse prevention techniques. Moreover, the program included exposure with response prevention (ERP) sessions [23], with the objective of reducing the patients’ arousal levels when exposed to certain stimuli which trigger the urge to enact buying behavior, and the intention of improving self-efficacy expectations for their CBSD recovery. The procedure consisted in confronting the patients in vivo with stimuli or situations that trigger the urge to buy (exposure) and prevent them from carrying out the behavior (re- sponse prevention). The ERP sessions were carried out in familiar shopping places, such as malls and commercial areas with a high density of preferred boutiques, as well as their favored shopping websites, where the subjects had to spend the mandated time in the presence of the activating stimulus. If the urge to buy did not diminish in this period of time, patients were advised to wait. For the first session of EPR, patients were advised to be accompanied in order to monitor activation levels, and, once these diminished, they continued with the consecutive sessions on their own. 2.2.2. Main Outcome Variables The full recovery outcome, as the main objective of the treatment, was defined as the absence of compulsive buying episodes and the stabilization of other areas of the patients’ life, including emotional, family, professional, and social areas. Moreover, relapse compul- sive buying episodes were identified as non-planned purchases associated with impulsive urges and negative urgency, followed by feelings of guilt and a loss of control independent of the amount of money spent once the treatment had begun. If a patient skipped three therapy sessions without informing the therapist, they were defined as dropout. In contrast, adherence to treatment was defined as patient compliance to therapeutic guidelines, in- cluding performing inter-sessions tasks such as recording and controlling their spends, and avoiding risky situations. Poor compliance was considered to be when a breach between these inter-sessions tasks occurred. 2.3. Instruments 2.3.1. Diagnostic Criteria for CBSD These criteria for CBSD according to McElroy et al. [24] have received wide accep- tance in the research community, although their reliability and validity have not yet been determined [25]. It is worth noting that no formal diagnostic criteria for CBSD have been accepted for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) [26], nor for the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD- 11) [27]. At present, it is recommended that CBSD diagnosis should be determined via Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 4 of 11 detailed face-to-face interviews which explore “buying attitudes, associated feelings, un- derlying thoughts, and the extent of preoccupation with buying and shopping” [28]. 2.3.2. Symptom Checklist-Revised (SCL-90-R) The SCL-90-R [29] is a 90-item questionnaire utilized to assess psychological distress and psychopathology in 9 symptom dimensions: somatization, obsessive–compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. The global score (Global Severity Index [GSI]) is a widely used index of psychopathological distress. In this study, the adapted version for the Spanish population was used [30]. Cronbach’s alpha (a) in the sample of this work was in the good to excellent range (The second table in this manuscript includes a-values for each scale). 2.3.3. Other Sociodemographic and Clinical Variables Specific CBSD behavior information was collected, such as the age of onset of CBSD, the mean and total maximum of monetary investment in a single episode of buying, and the total accumulated debt. Other variables associated with buying were assessed through a semi-structured face-to-face clinical interview, including demographic, clinical, and social/family variables [19]. The social position was calculated with the Hollingshead’s definition index [31], which provides a measure of the positions that individual or nuclear families occupy in the status structure of the society, based on different factors: education, occupation, marital status, and employment status. The family support for CBSD related problems was registered according to the patients’ perceptions: (a) lack of family support; (b) the family offers some form of support but patients perceive it as insufficient; and (c) family support is perceived by patients as full or sufficient. Substance use was directly informed by the patients in three items codified in a binary scale (no/yes) for tobacco use, alcohol use, and the use of other illegal drugs (this measurement did not allow differences between the non-problematic use and problematic abuse of substances). 2.4. Procedure The data analyzed in this work correspond to the assessment at baseline (before the CBT) and the outcomes reported by the patients during the treatment. With the arrival at the unit, all of the patients completed the diagnostic and screening tools, as well as the semi-structured clinical interview. Next, during the treatment, patients reported in each session the adherence to the therapy guidelines and the presence of relapses. 2.5. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was carried out with Stata17 for Windows [32]. A comparison between the groups was performed with chi-square tests (|2 ) for categorical variables (the exact p-value was obtained for comparisons with expected counts less than 5) and with a t-test for independent samples for quantitative variables (the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality required for these procedures reported non-significant results). Survival analyses were used to explore the rate of dropout, as well as relapses. The Kaplan–Meier (product–limit) estimator estimated the cumulative survival functions, and the Log Rank test compared the curves between the groups. The survival function is a method used to measure the probability of patients “living” (surviving without the presence of the outcome, for example, without dropouts) for a certain amount of time (in the study, during the treatment). One of the most relevant advantages of this procedure is allowing for the possibility of modeling censored data, which occurs if patients withdraw from the study (arrive alive at the end of the follow-up, or are lost to the follow-up without event occurrence at last measurement time) [33]. In this study, the effect size for the comparison between the groups was estimated with Cramer-V for the χ2 , and with the Cohen-d coefficient for the difference between the means [34]. Effect size interpretation was based on Fergusson’s guidelines [35]: rec- ommended minimum effect size representing a practically significant effect (RMPE) for Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 5 of 11 |d| > 0.41 or C-V > 0.20, moderate effect for |d| > 1.15 or C-V > 0.50, and strong for |d| > 2.70 or C-V > 0.80. The Finner method procedure was used to control the increase in Type-I errors due the use of multiple null-hypothesis tests. This is a stepwise multiple test procedure aimed to adjust p-values controlling the familywise error rate (FWER, defined as the probability that the statistical system makes at least k false rejections). When controlling the k-FWER, a fixed number of k − 1 of erroneous rejections is tolerated, and where all of the null hypotheses are equal, controlling the FWER at level α is equivalent to the problem of combining p-values to obtain a single testing for a null-hypothesis, which is at level α [36]. 3. Results 3.1. Characteristics of the Participants Table 1 displays the descriptive values for the sociodemographic variables, as well as the comparison between the groups. Within the total sample, most participants in the study reported primary or secondary education levels, married civil status, belonged to mean-low or low social position levels, were employed, and had a mean age of M = 43.0 years (SD = 10.6). Differences between the groups (significant results in the null-hypothesis tests or effect size higher than RMPE) were obtained for all of the sociodemographic, with the exception of employment status: this group of mothers reported a higher proportion of participants who were married, with lower social indexes, and with an older mean age. Table 1. Descriptive of the sample. Total (n = 77) Non-Mothers (n = 28) Mothers (n = 49) n % n % n % p C-V Education level Primary 29 37.7% 6 21.4% 23 46.9% 0.077 0.26 † Secondary 29 37.7% 14 50.0% 15 30.6% University 19 24.7% 8 28.6% 11 22.4% Civil status Single 27 35.1% 21 75.0% 6 12.2% <0.001 * 0.64 † Married-in couple 40 51.9% 5 17.9% 35 71.4% Divorced-separated 10 13.0% 2 7.1% 8 16.3% Social index Mean-high or high 17 22.1% 6 21.4% 11 22.4% <0.017 0.37 † Mean 7 9.1% 5 17.9% 2 4.1% Mean-low 24 31.2% 12 42.9% 12 24.5% Low 29 37.7% 5 17.9% 24 49.0% Employment Unemployed 35 45.5% 12 42.9% 23 46.9% 0.729 0.04 Employed 42 54.5% 16 57.1% 26 53.1% Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD p |d| Age (years-old) 43.03 10.59 38.04 9.31 45.88 10.30 0.001 * 0.80 † Note. SD: standard deviation. * Bold: significant comparison (0.05 level). † Bold: effect higher than the recommended minimum effect size representing a practically significant effect. 3.2. Comparison between the Groups at Baseline The psychological state, the CBSD related variables, and the prevalence of substance use and abuse registered at baseline are displayed in Table 2, as well as the comparison between the groups. No association between psychopathology and motherhood was observed (mean scores in the SCL-90-R were statistically equal between the groups, and effect sizes were lower than RMPE). The group of women with children reported an older age of onset of CBSD, a lower amount of Euros spent per compulsive buying episode (considering the maximum money spent reported), lower risk of alcohol use, and higher likelihood of family support for the CBSD (partial or complete). 3.3. Comparison between the Groups for the CBT Outcomes during the Treatment The number of completed treatment sessions was in the range of 1 to 12 (mean = 8.8, SD = 4.1). The first grouped bar chart in Figure 1 represents the risk of dropout during the treatment (calculated for the total sample). The other grouped bar charts correspond to the risk of relapses, as well as the report of poor compliance of the treatment guidelines Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 6 of 11 (estimated for the patients who completed the treatment). These results evidence that being a mother was associated with better CBT outcome, and concretely associated with lower risk of relapse (although null-hypothesis tests achieved non-significant results for the likelihood of relapses, effect sizes were higher than RMPE). Table 2. Comparison of the clinical profile. Non-Mothers (n = 28) Mothers (n = 49) Psychopathology α Mean SD Mean SD p |d| (SCL-90-R) Somatization 0.907 1.64 1.17 1.75 1.09 0.685 0.10 Obsessive/compulsive 0.898 2.12 1.09 1.83 1.04 0.267 0.28 Interpersonal 0.871 1.77 1.05 1.53 1.00 0.356 0.23 sensitive Depressive 0.914 2.38 1.12 2.28 1.07 0.711 0.09 Anxiety 0.908 1.76 1.06 1.70 1.20 0.841 0.05 Hostility 0.860 1.56 1.25 1.23 0.92 0.212 0.30 Phobic anxiety 0.844 1.09 1.15 0.97 1.03 0.638 0.12 Paranoid Ideation 0.808 1.60 1.04 1.33 0.94 0.275 0.27 Psychotic 0.831 1.29 0.95 1.24 0.97 0.828 0.05 GSI score 0.981 1.75 0.92 1.65 0.91 0.655 0.11 PST score 0.981 60.32 21.19 57.04 21.47 0.541 0.15 PSDI score 0.981 2.41 0.76 2.43 0.66 0.923 0.02 Onset-duration buying problems Mean SD Mean SD p |d| Age of onset of buying problems 28.53 10.74 37.94 12.22 0.001 * 0.82 † Duration of buying problems 7.18 6.90 8.38 8.19 0.517 0.16 Buying related variables n % n % p C-V Max. money Less 50 € 10 35.7% 27 55.1% 0.235 0.23 † spent/episode 50 to 100 € 1 3.6% 0 0.0% 100 to 300 € 6 21.4% 7 14.3% More than 300 € 11 39.3% 15 30.6% Mean money Less 50 € 21 75.0% 39 79.6% 0.580 0.16 spent/episode 50 to 100 € 4 14.3% 3 6.1% 100 to 300 € 2 7.1% 6 12.2% More 300 € 1 3.6% 1 2.0% Debts due to No 18 64.3% 22 44.9% 0.101 0.19 buying behaviors Yes 10 35.7% 27 55.1% Family support No 3 10.7% 3 6.1% 0.082 0.24 † Partial 2 7.1% 13 26.5% Complete 23 82.1% 33 67.3% Prevalence substances use/abuse n % n % p C-V Tobacco 12 42.9% 14 28.6% 0.202 0.15 Alcohol 2 7.1% 0 0.0% 0.042 * 0.22 † Other illegal drugs 1 3.6% 1 2.0% 0.690 0.05 Note. SCL-90-R: Symptom Checklist, Revised; GSI: Global Severity Index; PST: Positive Symptom Total; PSDI: Positive Symptom Distress Index; α: Cronbach’s alpha in the study. SD: standard deviation. * Bold: significant comparison (0.05 level). † Bold: higher effect than the recommended minimum effect size representing a practically significant effect. Within the subsample of the patients who completed the treatment, the number of relapses during the treatment plan was also lower among women with children (M = 0.73 [SD = 1.68] versus M = 1.88 [SD = 2.73], t = 3.29, df = 44, p = 0.002, |d| = 0.50). The total amount of money spent (Euros) reported in the relapses registered during the intervention was also lower (M = 68.5 [SD = 20.84] versus M = 152.8 [SD = 28.83], t = 7.73, df = 44, p < 0.001, |d| = 0.33). Within the subsample of the patients who completed the treatment, the number of relapses during the treatment plan was also lower among women with children (M = 0.73 [SD = 1.68] versus M = 1.88 [SD = 2.73], t = 3.29, df = 44, p = 0.002, |d| = 0.50). The total amount of money spent (Euros) reported in the relapses registered during the intervention was Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, also lower (M = 68.5 [SD = 20.84] versus M = 152.8 [SD = 28.83], t = 7.73, df = 44, 7075 7 of p 11< 0.001, |d| = 0.33). Figure 1. Presence of the therapy outcomes in the study. Figure 1. Presence of the therapy outcomes in the study. 3.4. Survival Analysis 3.4. Figure Survival Analysis the cumulative survival functions estimated for the groups of women 2 includes Figure with and 2 includes without thefor children, cumulative the rate of survival dropout, functions estimated and for relapses (the for theofgroups study dropoutof Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, was x performed women 19, in the with and total sample, without children,while relapses for the rate ofwere analyzed dropout, in the and for subsample relapses 8 of of the (the study 11of patients dropoutwho wascompleted performed the treatment). in the No significant total sample, results while relapses were were obtained analyzed in the in the Log subsam- Rank ple oftests the for the rate patients of dropout, who completed while mothers achieved the treatment). a survival No significant time without results relapsesin were obtained which the Logwas longer Rank teststhan in women for the without children. rate of dropout, while mothers achieved a survival time without relapses which was longer than in women without children. Figure 2. Cumulative survival function for the rate of dropout and relapses. Figure 2. Cumulative survival function for the rate of dropout and relapses. 4. Discussion The aims of this study were twofold: (1) to compare the sociodemographic and clin- ical profile of women with CBSD who are mothers with those women who are childless; and (2) to determine whether motherhood has a positive or negative impact on the treat- ment response of these women by assessing dropout, relapse, and compliance rates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 8 of 11 4. Discussion The aims of this study were twofold: (1) to compare the sociodemographic and clinical profile of women with CBSD who are mothers with those women who are childless; and (2) to determine whether motherhood has a positive or negative impact on the treatment response of these women by assessing dropout, relapse, and compliance rates. Regarding sociodemographic differences between groups, the mothers group reported an older mean age, lower social indexes, and a higher likelihood of being married. Marriage, as well as support and reciprocity with family members, along with other factors, has been considered a key developmental turning point that has enormous power as a mechanism of change for those seeking recovery [37]. Therefore, in addition to the specific role of moth- erhood, marriage could have played a highly relevant role in recovery. Sociodemographic differences between the two groups may have generated a certain bias in the results; as such, they should be interpreted with caution. No association between psychopathology and motherhood was observed. The group of women with children reported an older age of onset of the buying-related problems, a lower amount of Euros spent per compulsive buying episode (considering the maximum money spent for episode reported), a lower risk of alcohol use, and a higher likelihood of family support for the CBSD. Previous studies have suggested that family support is associated with improved psychological and social health, along with a greater likelihood of treatment completion and sustained abstinence post-treatment [38–40]. Therefore, it is possible that, to some extent, these lower levels of clinical aspects associated with CBSD in the mothers’ group are due to the fact that they reported greater family support. In accordance with our hypothesis, being a mother was also associated with better treatment outcomes, specifically with a lower risk of relapse and a lower proportion of poor treatment compliance. Moreover, within the subsample of the patients who completed the treatment, the number of relapses during the treatment plan was also lower among women with children, as well as the total number of Euros spent in the relapse episode. These results would support previous proposals, which consider motherhood as the most relevant internal facilitator in the field of addictions when it comes to seeking and engaging treatment and maintaining abstinence [41–43]. The desire to be a good mother and to break the generational cycle of addiction may, therefore, be more powerful than the challenges for recovery that mothers with addictions have to face, such as environmental cues (being with people or in places that normalize the addictive behavior), as well as difficulties in coping with stress, negative emotions, and interpersonal problems [44]. 4.1. Research and Clinical Implications As the results of the present study suggest, motherhood appears to be a possible internal facilitating state for recovery and treatment adherence for women with CBSD. Overall, motherhood appears to reduce the risk of relapse. Therefore, at the clinical level, motherhood and associated factors should be explored, with the aim of promoting greater adherence to treatment. On the other hand, for those women who do not have children, the presence of other factors that may promote a good response to treatment should be further examined. At research level, this study is an open door to explore the role of motherhood in other behavioral addictions in depth. 4.2. Limitations and Future Research The present study has several limitations. First, some likely related variables, including the number and age of the children, and other possible treatment barriers were not taken into account. Future studies could explore whether these factors may play a determining role in the treatment response. Second, women who did not initiate treatment were not counted, and a waitlist control group was not included. Future studies could explore the percentage of pre-treatment dropout and its possible association with motherhood. Third, the reason for dropouts and relapses was not assessed; as such, it is not possible to determine whether they were related to maternal causes. Moreover, the accuracy measuring Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 9 of 11 treatment response was limited, since there was no quantitative outcome variable for CBSD. Fourth, this study analyzed the data registered during the intervention; therefore, it is unknown how the compulsive buying behavior progressed during the follow-up after the treatment. Further research should assess the medium- and long-term effects after the intervention, along with the potential association with motherhood. Fifth, the fact that the same therapists performed the assessment and the treatment may represent a bias in the reported outcomes. For example, therapists may have expected mothers to perform better in treatment, which may have changed their treatment style, affecting the reporting outcomes. Finally, future studies could replicate the study with a larger sample, with women with other addictions (both behavioral and substance), as well as including fathers, to explore whether the weight of motherhood and fatherhood in recovery are similar. 5. Conclusions The results of the present study suggest that motherhood is associated with a less severe clinical profile of women with CBSD, as well as with a better response to treatment (lower risk of relapse, as well as a lower risk of non-adherence to therapy guidelines). The results support the theoretical proposal that considers motherhood as an internal facilitating factor for recovery and treatment adherence of mothers with mental disorders. However, given the variability of psychological processes related to potential protective and risk factors in the context of motherhood and CBSD, more research on the potential mechanisms is needed to individualize and optimize treatment for women with CBSD. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.M.-B., F.F.-A. and S.J.-M.; Methodology, G.M.-B., R.G., G.C.-S., F.F.-A., M.G.-P., L.M., I.S., L.C.-B., M.L.L.-H. and S.J.-M.; Software, R.G.; Formal Analysis, R.G.; Data Curation, R.G.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, G.M.-B., R.G., G.C.-S. and S.J.-M.; Writing—Review and Editing, G.M.-B., R.G., A.V., F.F.-A. and S.J.-M.; Supervision, F.F.-A., A.M., M.B. and S.J.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya gave institutional support. This work was additionally supported by a grant from the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (grant RTI2018-101837-B-100). The research was funded by the Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas (2019I47 and 2021I031), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) (PI17/01167), and co-funded by FEDER funds/European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), a way to build Europe. CIBEROBN is an initiative of ISCIII. G.M.-B. was supported by a postdoctoral grant from FUNCIVA. R.G. was supported by The Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA Academia Program). The Research Commission of Bellvitge Campus, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona also provided financial support through the grant to conclude the doctoral thesis (M.-L.L.-H.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Bellvitge University Hospital Clinical Research Ethics Committee (PR 307/06 and data of approval 8 February 2007). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data will be available through a direct request to the authors, who will evaluate the type of information requested with the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the University Hospital of Bellvitge. Due to the clinical nature of the sample analyzed and the fact that the patients signed a consent form for their data to be stored and kept by the hospital center, it is not possible to transfer them to an open data repository. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 10 of 11 References 1. Barnett, E.R.; Knight, E.; Herman, R.J.; Amarakaran, K.; Jankowski, M.K. Difficult binds: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers to treatment among mothers with substance use disorders. J. Subst. Abus. Treat. 2021, 126, 108341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Secco, L.; Letourneau, N.; Campbell, M.A.; Craig, S.; Colpitts, J. Stresses, strengths, and experiences of mothers engaged in methadone maintenance treatment. J. Addict. Nurs. 2014, 25, 139–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Lander, L.; Howsare, J.; Byrne, M. The Impact of Substance Use Disorders on Families and Children: From Theory to Practice. Soc. Work Public Health 2013, 28, 194–205. [CrossRef] 4. Marcellus, L. A Grounded Theory of Mothering in the Early Years for Women Recovering From Substance Use. J. Fam. Nurs. 2017, 23, 341–365. [CrossRef] 5. Mackintosh, V.; Knight, T. The notion of self in the journey back from addiction. Qual. Health Res. 2012, 22, 1094–1101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Hine, R.H.; Maybery, D.J.; Goodyear, M.J. Identity in recovery for mothers with a mental illness: A literature review. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. Educ. Publ. Found. 2018, 41, 16. [CrossRef] 7. Nicholson, J.; Henry, A.D. Achieving the goal of evidence-based psychiatric rehabilitation practices for mothers with mental illnesses. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 2003, 27, 122–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Benoit, C.; Magnus, S.; Phillips, R.; Marcellus, L.; Charbonneau, S. Complicating the dominant morality discourse: Mothers and fathers’ constructions of substance use during pregnancy and early parenthood. Int. J. Equity Health 2015, 14, 72. [CrossRef] 9. Tuchman, E. Women and addiction: The importance of gender issues in substance abuse research. J. Addict. Dis. 2010, 29, 127–138. [CrossRef] 10. Brown, S. A Place Called Self: Women, Sobriety & Radical Transformation; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2009. 11. Elms, N.; Link, K.; Newman, A.; Brogly, S.B. Need for women-centered treatment for substance use disorders: Results from focus group discussions. Harm Reduct. J. 2018, 15, 40. [CrossRef] 12. Adams, Z.M.; Ginapp, C.M.; Price, C.R.; Qin, Y.; Madden, L.M.; Yonkers, K.; Meyer, J.P. “A good mother”: Impact of motherhood identity on women’s substance use and engagement in treatment across the lifespan. J. Subst. Abus. Treat. 2021, 130, 108474. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Gavriel-Fried, B.; Ajzenstadt, M. Pathological Women Gamblers: Gender-Related Aspects of Control. Sex Roles 2012, 66, 128–142. [CrossRef] 14. Suchman, E.; Cindy, L.D.; Thomas, J.M.; Rachel, D.; Linda, C.; Mayes, J.B. Mothering from the Inside Out: Results of a second randomized clinical trial testing a mentalization-based intervention for mothers in addiction treatment. Dev. Psychopathol. 2017, 29, 617–636. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Lejoyeux, M.; Weinstein, A. Compulsive buying. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abus. 2010, 36, 248–253. [CrossRef] 16. Brand, M.; Rumpf, H.-J.; Demetrovics, Z.; MÜller, A.; Stark, R.; King, D.L.; Goudriaan, A.E.; Mann, K.; Trotzke, P.; Fineberg, N.A.; et al. Which conditions should be considered as disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) designation of “other specified disorders due to addictive behaviors”? J. Behav. Addict. 2020. [CrossRef] 17. Müller, A.; Laskowski, N.M.; Trotzke, P.; Ali, K.; Fassnacht, D.B.; de Zwaan, M.; Brand, M.; Häder, M.; Kyrios, M. Proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder: A Delphi expert consensus study. J. Behav. Addict. 2021, 10, 208–222. [CrossRef] 18. Hague, B.; Hall, J.; Kellett, S. Treatments for compulsive buying: A systematic review of the quality, effectiveness and progression of the outcome evidence. J. Behav. Addict. 2016, 5, 379–394. [CrossRef] 19. Jimenez-Murcia, S.; Aymamı-Sanroma, N.; Gomez-Peña, M.; Alvarez-Moya, E.; Vallejo, J. Protocols de Tractament Cognitivoconduc- tual pel joc Patològic i d’altres Addiccions no Tòxiques Departamen; Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge: Barcelona, Spain, 2006. 20. Jiménez-Murcia, S.; Granero, R.; Fernández-Aranda, F.; Arcelus, J.; Aymamí, M.N.; Gomez-Peña, M.; Tárrega, S.; Moragas, L.; Del Pino-Gutiérrez, A.; Sauchelli, S.; et al. Predictors of outcome among pathological gamblers receiving cognitive behavioral group therapy. Eur. Addict. Res. 2015, 21, 169–178. [CrossRef] 21. Black, D.W. Compulsive buying disorder: A review of the evidence. CNS Spectr. 2007, 12, 124–132. [CrossRef] 22. Granero, R.; Fernandez-Aranda, F.; Mestre-Bach, G.; Steward, T.; Baño, M.; Agüera, Z.; Mallorquí-Bagué, N.; Aymamí, N.; Gomez-Peña, M.; Sancho, M.; et al. Cognitive behavioral therapy for compulsive buying behavior: Predictors of treatment outcome. Eur. Psychiatry 2017, 39, 57–65. [CrossRef] 23. Jimenez-Murcia, S.; Aymamí, N.; Gómez-Peña, M.; Santamaría, J.J.; Álvarez-Moya, E.; Fernández-Aranda, F.; Granero, R.; Penelo, E.; Bueno, B.; Moragas, L.; et al. Does exposure and response prevention improve the results of group cognitive- behavioural therapy for male slot machine pathological gamblers? Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 51, 54–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. McElroy, S.L.; Keck, P.E.; Pope, H.G.; Smith, J.M.; Strakowski, S.M. Compulsive buying: A report of 20 cases. J. Clin. Psychiatry 1994, 55, 242–248. [PubMed] 25. Tavares, H.; Lobo, D.S.S.; Fuentes, D.; Black, D.W. Compulsive buying disorder:a review and a case vignette. Braz. J. Psychiatry 2008, 30, S16–S23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. APA. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. 27. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 11th ed.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7075 11 of 11 28. Müller, A.; Mitchell, J.E.; de Zwaan, M. Compulsive buying. Am. J. Addict. 2015, 24, 132–137. [CrossRef] 29. Derogatis, L. Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research; SCL-90-R; Clinical Psychome- tric Research: Towson, MD, USA, 1990. 30. Derogatis, L.R. SCL-90-R. Cuestionario de 90 Síntomas-Manual; TEA Editorial: Madrid, Spain, 2002. 31. Hollingshead, A.B. Four factor index of social status. Ale J. Sociol. 2011, 8, 21–51. 32. Stata-Corp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17; College Station TSPP, Ed.; StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2021. 33. Singer, J.D.; Willett, J.B.; Willett, J.B. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003. 34. Kelley, K.; Preacher, K.J. On effect size. Psychol. Methods 2012, 17, 137–152. [CrossRef] 35. Ferguson, C.J. An Effect Size Primer: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers. In Methodological Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research; Kazdin, A.E., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 532–538. 36. Finner, H.; Roters, M. On the false discovery rate and expected type I errors. Biom. J. Wiley Online Libr. 2001, 43, 985–1005. [CrossRef] 37. Gunn, A.; Samuels, G.M. Promoting Recovery Identities Among Mothers with Histories of Addiction: Strategies of Family Engagement. Fam. Process. 2020, 59, 94–110. [CrossRef] 38. Lin, C.; Wu, Z.; Detels, R. Family support, quality of life and concurrent substance use among methadone maintenance therapy clients in China. Public Health 2011, 125, 269–274. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3624763 /pdf/nihms412728.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2021). [CrossRef] 39. Ellis, B.; Bernichon, T.; Yu, P.; Roberts, T.; Herrell, J.M. Effect of social support on substance abuse relapse in a residential treatment setting for women. Eval. Program. Plann. 2004, 27, 213–221. [CrossRef] 40. Patricia, J.K.; Beth Blacksin, E. Factors Affecting Substance Abuse Treatment Completion for Women. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2001, 22, 287–304. [CrossRef] 41. Hser, Y.-I.; Evans, E.; Huang, D.; Messina, N. Long-term outcomes among drug-dependent mothers treated in women-only versus mixed-gender programs. J. Subst. Abus. Treat. 2011, 41, 115–123. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 42. Greenfield, S.F.; Brooks, A.J.; Gordon, S.M.; Green, C.; Kropp, F.; McHugh, R.K.; Lincoln, M.; Hien, D.; Miele, G.M. Substance abuse treatment entry, retention, and outcome in women: A review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007, 86, 1–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Mitrani, V.B.; Feaster, D.J.; Mccabe, B.E. Malaise, motivation and motherhood:predictors of engagement in behavioural interven- tions. Aids Behav. 2011, 15, 396–406. [CrossRef] 44. Villegas, N.A.; Chodhury, S.M.; Mitrani, V.B.; Guerra, J. Mothers in substance abuse recovery: Perspectives on motivators, challenges and family involvement. Int. J. High. Risk Behav. Addict. 2017, 6, e32558. [CrossRef]