An All-Female Problem-Gambling Counseling Treatment: Perceptions of Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that gambling is not gender-specific, the majority of the research in Western culture has focused on the situation of the American male gambler. Women of all ages, income, and culture gamble (Boughton, 2006; Statistics Canada, 2008; Wenzel & Dahl, 2009), thus emerging as the gender most likely to experience gambling difficulties (Li, 2007; Schnell, 2002), while simultaneously being less likely to seek treatment for problem gambling compared with men (Boughton; Volberg, 2003). A logical question arising is, “What intervention mechanisms would support female problem gamblers?” The purpose of this study was to explore women's experiences of all-female group counseling for problem gambling and to identify emergent themes from the women's experience. Participants were in a 12-week women-only treatment group offered through a provincial health agency. A qualitative, thematic analysis using the constant comparison method was conducted with resultant themes and grounded theory, providing insight into counseling practices for women problem gamblers. The results highlight that the women who participated in the group found women-only groups to be helpful and stated their preference for female-only treatment groups in the future. Further research and exploration of women-only treatment are recommended to improve problem-gambling intervention for women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".