The Efficacy of Individual Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) for Concerned Significant Others of Problem Gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".