Self-stigma coping and treatment-seeking in problem gambling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stigma has been explored as a cause of reduced and delayed treatment-seeking for problem gambling, a population in which only 1 in 10 seek treatment. The present study examined the effect of perceived public stigma and self-stigma on affect and behavioural coping efforts. Path analysis was used to examine self-stigma in 155 individuals with gambling problems. The majority of participants met criteria for a gambling disorder (93.5%), were current gamblers (69%) and had never sought treatment (54.2%). The data fit the proposed path model well; self-stigma was associated with reduced self-esteem and increased shame. Shame predicted use of secrecy and withdrawal coping. Endorsement of negative stereotypes of ‘problem gamblers’ was associated with decreased treatment-seeking while greater self-stigma predicted increased treatment-seeking. Additional predictors of increased treatment-seeking included greater gambling problem severity, more positive attitudes towards treatment, male sex and higher income. Self-stigma increased rather than decreased treatment-seeking in this analysis. Efforts to increase treatment-seeking could target women, those with lower income and those with less severe gambling problems.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".