MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509014541 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2016.33.11

The Efficacy of Individual Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) for Concerned Significant Others of Problem Gamblers

2016· article· en· W2509014541 on OpenAlex
Nicole Nayoski, David C. Hodgins

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftWorkbookPsychologyDistressClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyPsychiatryVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment options for concerned significant others (CSOs) of problem gamblers are limited, and available treatments focus exclusively on the distress of CSOs. Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) is a comprehensive treatment program for CSOs of substance abusers that has been shown to reduce CSO distress in addition to the substance abuser's alcohol or drug behaviour. CRAFT capitalizes on the well-documented fact that family members have considerable influence on the substance abuser's decision to enter treatment. The present study modified the CRAFT approach into an individual treatment format for CSOs of problem gamblers and examined its efficacy in comparison to a CRAFT self-help workbook in a randomized clinical trial. A total of 31 participants were recruited. No statistical differences were found between the groups; however, effect sizes indicated that participants who received the CRAFT individual intervention seemed to have better outcomes than did those who received the CRAFT workbook (decreased days and dollars gambled by the gambler and improved CSO functioning). No differences between groups were found for gambler treatment entry rates over the follow-up period in terms of effect sizes. The results provide initial, but limited, support for the CRAFT approach delivered to CSOs of treatment-resistant problem gamblers in an individual treatment format compared with the self-help workbook format. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to gauge the efficacy of the CRAFT individual intervention compared with the CRAFT self-help workbook.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.376
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.071 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it