Randomized trial of brief motivational treatments for pathological gamblers: More is not necessarily better.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of brief treatments for media-recruited pathological gamblers was tested in a randomized clinical trial design (N = 314). Two self-directed motivational interventions were compared with a 6-week waiting list control and a workbook only control. Brief motivational treatment involved a telephone motivational interview and a mailed self-help workbook. Brief motivational booster treatment involved a telephone motivational interview, a workbook, and 6 booster telephone calls over a 9-month period. Primary outcomes were gambling frequency and dollar losses. As hypothesized, brief and brief booster treatment participants reported less gambling at 6 weeks than those assigned to the control groups. Brief and brief booster treatment participants gambled significantly less often over the first 6 months of the follow-up than workbook only participants. However, the workbook only participants were as likely to have significantly reduced their losses over the year and to have not met criteria for pathological gambling. Contrary to the hypothesis, participants in the brief booster treatment group showed no greater improvement than brief treatment participants. These results provide further support for the value of brief motivational treatments for pathological gambling.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".