MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606646312 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2017.35.2

Financial recovery from problem gambling: problem gamblers’ experiences of social assistance and other financial support

2017· article· en· W2606646312 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Heiskanen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrideFinanceThematic analysisTheme (computing)WelfareSample (material)Social WelfarePsychologyBusinessQualitative researchEconomicsPolitical scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this article is to understand problem gamblers’ experiences of recovery from financial difficulties caused by problem gambling. Specifically, financial social assistance from public services is considered. A sample of 17 interviews with Finnish self-identified, treatment-seeking problem gamblers from various financial positions was analyzed qualitatively using thematic content analysis. The analysis revealed four themes. The first theme examines how the financial concerns of problem gamblers were left unaddressed by treatment professionals. The second theme discusses the rationalizations behind not applying for or not receiving financial social assistance from public services. The reasons behind not applying for financial social assistance were related to financial stability and perceived pride derived from surviving independently (loss of pride when not being able to survive independently). Not receiving assistance despite applying for it was mostly because of their income having been assessed as adequate by the social services. Third theme examines receiving financial social assistance during, or after, problematic gambling. Participants living on welfare often spent their benefits on gambling in the hopes of an increased income. Recovering lower-income problem gamblers also received financial social assistance for living expenses or for treatment. Fourth, non-governmental and more controlling forms of financial support were (1) financial assistance within private safety nets, (2) support for over-indebtedness from an NGO, or (3) private person/official authority taking control over problem gamblers’ financial matters. The socio-economic background factors are important to address when designing financial and other support for problem gamblers. The results of this study provide useful information for future survey studies of the topic.Dans cet article, on cherche à comprendre le vécu des joueurs pathologiques qui ont dû surmonter des problèmes d’argent en raison du jeu compulsif. Plus particulièrement, on s’est intéressé à l’aide sociale financière offerte par les services publics. Un échantillon de 17 entrevues avec des Finlandais s’étant déclarés joueurs pathologiques à la recherche d’un traitement et se trouvant dans différentes situations financières a été étudié qualitativement à partir d’une analyse du contenu thématique. De cette analyse, quatre thèmes ont été dégagés. Le premier porte sur la façon dont les fournisseurs de traitement n’ont pas tenu compte des soucis matériels des joueurs pathologiques. Le deuxième parle des arguments avancés pour ne pas avoir demandé ou reçu d’aide sociale financière des services publics. Les raisons s’opposant à la présentation d’une telle demande avaient trait à la stabilité financière et à la fierté ressentie au fait d’assurer seul sa survie. Dans la plupart des cas, les personnes qui n’avaient pas reçu d’aide même après avoir fait une demande pour en obtenir disposaient d’un revenu que les services sociaux jugeaient adéquat. Le troisième aborde l’aide sociale financière qui a été reçue durant ou après les problèmes de jeu. Les participants vivant de l’aide sociale dépensaient souvent leurs prestations au jeu dans l’espoir d’augmenter leur revenu. Les joueurs pathologiques en voie de guérison dont le revenu était plus faible ont également reçu de l’aide sociale financière pour leurs dépenses courantes ou pour leur traitement. Le quatrième traite des formes de soutien monétaire non gouvernementales et plus contrôlantes, notamment (1) l’aide financière dans le cadre de filets de sécurité privés, (2) l’aide fournie par une organisation non gouvernementale pour le surendettement ou (3) un particulier ou une autorité officielle qui prend en main les problèmes d’argent des joueurs pathologiques. Il est important d’examiner les facteurs en matière de contexte socioéconomique au moment de concevoir des mécanismes de soutien financier ou autres pour les joueurs pathologiques. Les résultats de cette étude fournissent des renseignements utiles pour de futures études par sondage sur ce sujet.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207