Closing a Treatment Gap in Ontario: Pilot of a Tutorial Workbook for Women Gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has shown that treatment services for problem gambling are being underutilized in Ontario, especially by women. Our pilot study involves the development of a Tutorial Workbook (TW) designed specifically to address the special issues and treatment needs of women who gamble and develop consequent problems. Investigators tested the effectiveness of the intervention and reviewed comments from women gamblers on the contents and layout of the workbook. The TW study involved 12 modules and required progress update and feedback forms for each. A mixed method analysis was used to evaluate the intervention, with quantitative and qualitative feedbacks indicating that it was well received by participants. The majority reported that the program helped them modify gambling behaviours through increased understanding and awareness of their triggers. They reported feeling better about themselves, improved mood and anxiety levels, feeling less isolated, positive changes in their relationships and hope for the future. Their input provided suggestions for changes to the TW. The TW will serve women seeking self-help materials, including on-line or paper-based support. As such, it expands services to reach a sub-group of women who might not otherwise seek or accept treatment because of a variety of barriers.Dans des recherches faites précédemment, on a montré que les services de traitement de problèmes liés au jeu compulsif sont sous-utilisés en Ontario, surtout par les femmes. Notre étude pilote a porté sur la conception d’un cahier didactique conçu spécialement pour répondre aux problèmes particuliers et aux besoins de traitement des femmes qui s’adonnent au jeu et développent des problèmes connexes. Les chercheurs ont testé l’efficacité de l’intervention et analysé les commentaires faits par des joueuses pathologiques sur le contenu et la mise en page du cahier. L’étude sur le cahier didactique comprenait douze modules et des formulaires de bilan/retour des progrès à remplir obligatoirement pour chaque module. On a utilisé une méthodologie mixte pour évaluer l’intervention, avec commentaires quantitatifs et qualitatifs indiquant un accueil favorable par les participantes. La plupart ont indiqué que le programme les a aidées à modifier leurs comportements de jeu, car il leur a permis d’acquérir une meilleure compréhension de leurs déclencheurs et d’en prendre conscience. Les participantes ont déclaré se sentir mieux à propos d’elles-mêmes, avoir noté une amélioration de l’humeur et une baisse de l’anxiété, s’être senties moins isolées, avoir observé des changements positifs dans leurs relations et avoir regagné espoir pour l’avenir. Dans leurs commentaires, elles ont fourni des suggestions pour modifier le cahier de travail. Ce cahier sera utile aux femmes qui recherchent des documents d’initiative personnelle, en ligne ou sur papier. Comme tel, cet outil apporte donc un complément aux services déjà offerts afin d’atteindre un sous-groupe de femmes qui autrement pourraient ne pas chercher ou accepter un traitement en raison de diverses barrières.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".