Mindfulness and problem gambling treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mindfulness originated from Buddhist contemplative practice 2500 years ago. Mindfulness has increasingly been integrated into a variety of health care programs to address issues such as chronic pain, mental health problems, and addictions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of teaching problem gamblers about mindfulness meditation as part of regular treatment for problem gambling. The study evaluated an 8-week mindfulness group program that included 17 clients from the Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (88% male) using questionnaires that were distributed before the first group session and after the final group session. The evaluation was a mixed method design that included both qualitative and quantitative feedback about the group. All of the participants showed an improvement in their levels of mindfulness after the 8-week treatment program. The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) scores increased from a pre-test score of 3.65 ( SD = 1.01) to a post-test score of 4.40 ( SD = 0.78). Qualitative feedback about the group also highlighted a number of improvements in the clients’ lives that included being more in control, relaxed and able to stay in the now. The results indicated that mindfulness was successfully taught during the 8-week group program. This study evaluated the suitability of mindfulness as an intervention as part of a problem gambling treatment service. However, the study did not evaluate whether mindfulness improved the clients’ ability to resist relapse. Future studies are needed to examine the long-term impact of mindfulness sessions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".