MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092895418 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2020.45.3

The Efficacy of Personalized Feedback Interventions Delivered via Smartphone among At-Risk College Student Gamblers

2020· article· en· W3092895418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas W. McAfee, Matthew P. Martens, Tracy E. Herring, Stephanie K. Takamatsu, Joanna M. Foss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyPopulationMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At-risk gambling is a public health problem that college students engage in at a disproportionate level compared to the general adult population. Brief interventions that incorporate personalized feedback have been efficacious at reducing gambling and related problems. The purpose of the present study was to examine the efficacy of personalized feedback-based interventions delivered via smartphone and text message. Participants were 255 students who met our screening criteria for “problem” or “pathological” gambling, and were randomized to one of three conditions: personalized feedback and follow-up targeted text messages (PFB-TXT); personalized feedback and follow-up educational information about gambling (PFB-EDU); and a control condition that received no personalized feedback or follow-up text messages. Dependent variables included percent days abstinent (PDA) from gambling, average amount wagered on a gambling day, and gambling-related problems. Results indicated that the PFB conditions did not have a direct effect relative to the control condition on the dependent variables at the six-month follow-up, but a statistically significant mediated effect on gambling-related problems via gambling norms did emerge at one-month. No differences between the two PFB conditions in terms of direct or indirect effects on the six-month outcome variables were determined. Findings from this study suggest that the personalized text condition did not provide greater efficacy in changing gambling-related outcomes over general educational messages with personalized feedback. To help explain the lack of direct intervention effects, we explored two hypotheses related to our study design and sample of gamblers.Résumé La pratique des jeux de hasard chez les étudiants universitaires constitue un problème de santé publique, car ils s’y adonnent en nombre disproportionné par rapport à la population adulte générale. Les interventions brèves qui incorporent une rétroaction personnalisée (RP) se sont avérées efficaces pour réduire la fréquence de jeu et les problèmes qui s’y rattachent. Ce projet visait à analyser l’efficacité des interventions axées sur la RP, relayées par téléphone intelligent et messagerie texte. 255 étudiants répondant à nos critères de sélection en matière de « problème de jeu » ou de jeu « pathologique » été répartis aléatoirement en trois groupes. Le premier groupe a reçu une RP et des messages textes de suivi; le deuxième groupe, une RP et du matériel d’information sur le jeu; et le troisième, soit le groupe contrôle, n’a reçu ni rétroaction ni message texte. Les variables dépendantes (VD) incluaient : le pourcentage de jours d’abstinence; la somme moyenne misée les jours de pari; ainsi que les problèmes de jeu. Selon nos résultats, la RP n’a aucun effet direct sur les VD au 6e mois de suivi par rapport au groupe contrôle; toutefois, on a constaté au 1er mois un effet de médiation statistiquement significatif d’une variable relative aux habitudes de jeu sur les problèmes de jeu. Par ailleurs, aucune différence n’a été observée entre les deux interventions quant à leur effet direct ou indirect sur les VD au 6e mois. Selon nos conclusions, la RP ne serait pas plus efficace que les messages d’information générale en ce qui touche l’incidence sur les problèmes de jeu. Pour tenter d’expliquer cette absence d’effet de l’intervention directe, nous proposons deux hypothèses, l’une relative à la méthodologie de notre étude et l’autre, à l’échantillon des joueurs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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