Natural and treatment‐assisted recovery from gambling problems: a comparison of resolved and active gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: An exploratory study was conducted to understand the process of recovery from gambling problems. DESIGN: Media recruitment was used to identify a resolved (n = 43) and a comparison group of active pathological gamblers (n = 63). PARTICIPANTS: Participants showed evidence of significant problems related to gambling as well as high rates of co-morbid mood and substance use disorders. The median length of resolution was 14 months with a range of 6 weeks to 20 years. FINDINGS: Resolved gamblers reported a variety of reasons for quitting gambling, related mainly to emotional and financial factors. They did not experience a greater number of precipitating life events compared with active gamblers but did report an increase in positive and a decrease in negative life events in the year after resolution. Both resolved and active gamblers who had relatively more severe problems were more likely to have had treatment or self-help involvement, whereas those with less severe problems, if resolved, were "naturally recovered". CONCLUSIONS: The results support the need for a continuum of treatment options for problem gamblers and provide helpful information about recovery processes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".