MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731171872 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2017.36.2

What is the harm? Applying a public health methodology to measure the impact of gambling problems and harm on quality of life.

2017· article· en· W2731171872 on OpenAlex

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 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHarmVignetteQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationPsychiatryClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the PGSI is indeed an established index of problem-gambling symptoms, it nevertheless does not quantify the degree of harm experienced by individuals at different points on the spectrum of gambling problems. The purpose of the present study was to establish the relationship between the PGSI category and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) decrements using a population health (PH) method. Harms reported by gamblers and affected others across the PGSI spectrums were transformed into 798 vignettes. A general population panel (N=786) and experts who work with gamblers (N=51) rated the impact of these vignette descriptions on quality of life using the Time Trade-Off task, and a Visual Analogue Scale incorporating 27 comparison conditions. Disability weights (DW) were then estimated for different levels of gambling symptoms. A DW of 0.44 was estimated for problem gamblers (PG), suggesting a reduction in the effective enjoyment of life by over 4 years for every 10 years in lifespan. Lower—but non-negligible—DWs of .14 and .29 were determined for low- and moderate-risk gamblers. Gambling is compared with a number of other conditions with respect to HRQoL impact. On average, PG harm appears to be similar to that of a manic episode of bipolar disorder and severe alcohol abuse disorder. We discuss advantages, and methodological challenges, in applying PH methods to measuring the severity of gambling problems in terms of HRQoL.Bien que l'indice du jeu excessif (PGSI) soit en effet un indice établi des symptômes liés aux problèmes de jeu, il ne quantifie pas le niveau de préjudice subi par les personnes situées à différents points sur le spectre des problèmes de jeu. Le but de l'étude a été d’établir la relation entre la catégorie PGSI et les écarts à la baisse en lien avec la qualité de vie liée à la santé (QVLS) en utilisant une méthode de santé de la population. Les torts signalés par les joueurs et les personnes touchées dans le spectre PGSI ont été transformés en 798 vignettes. Un groupe de population en général (N = 786) et des experts qui travaillent avec des joueurs compulsifs (N = 51) ont évalué l’incidence de ces descriptions de vignette sur la qualité de vie à l’aide de la tâche Time Trade-Off (marchandage de temps) et une échelle visuelle analogue intégrant 27 conditions de comparaison. Les poids d’incapacité (DW) ont ensuite été estimés pour différents niveaux de symptômes du jeu. Un DW de 0,44 a été estimé pour les joueurs compulsifs, ce qui laisse supposer une diminution de la jouissance réelle de la vie de plus de 4 ans pour chaque tranche de vie de 10 ans. Les DW inférieurs, mais non négligeables, de 0,14 et 0,29 ont été déterminés pour les joueurs à risque faible et modéré. Le jeu est comparé à un certain nombre d’autres conditions en ce qui concerne l’incidence de la qualité de vie liée à la santé (QVLS). En moyenne, le préjudice causé par un joueur compulsif s'apparente à celui d’un épisode maniaque de trouble bipolaire et d’un trouble sévère d’abus d’alcool. Nous discutons des avantages et des défis méthodologiques, en appliquant des méthodes de santé de la population pour mesurer la gravité des problèmes de jeu en termes de QVLS.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.803
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.209 · 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