MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232696355 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.14328/v3

Acceptability of Internet-based interventions for problem gambling: a qualitative study of focus groups with clients and clinicians

2020· preprint· en· W4232696355 on OpenAlexafffund
Sherald Sanchez, Farah Jindani, Jing Shi, Mark van der Maas, Sylvia Hagopian, Robert Murray, Nigel E. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsIbisThematic analysisFocus groupPsychological interventionUsabilityPsychologyQualitative researchThe InternetPerspective (graphical)Medical educationMedicineApplied psychologyNursingComputer scienceWorld Wide WebBusinessSociologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Although Internet-based interventions (IBIs) have been around for two decades, uptake has been slow. Increasing the acceptability of IBIs among end users may increase uptake. In this study, we explored the factors that shape acceptability of IBIs for problem gambling from the perspective of clients and clinicians. Findings from this qualitative study of focus groups informed the design and implementation of an IBI for problem gambling.Methods Using a semi-structured interview guide, we conducted three focus groups with clients experiencing gambling problems (total n = 13) and two with clinicians providing problem gambling treatment (total n = 21). Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a two-part inductive-deductive approach to thematic analysis.Results Although both user groups reported similar experiences, each group also had unique concerns. Clinician perspectives were more homogeneous reflective of healthcare professionals sharing the same practice and values. Clinicians were more concerned about issues relating to the dissemination of IBIs into clinical settings, including the development of policies and protocols and the implications of IBIs on the therapeutic relationship. In comparison, client narratives were more heterogeneous descriptive of diverse experiences and individual preferences, such as the availability of services on a 24-hour basis. There was consensus among clients and clinicians on common factors influencing acceptability: access, usability, high quality technology, privacy and security, and the value of professional guidance.Conclusions Acceptability is an important factor in the overall effectiveness of IBIs. Gaining an understanding of how end users perceive IBIs and why they choose to use IBIs can be instrumental in the successful and meaningful design, implementation, and evaluation of IBIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.489
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGambling Behavior and Treatments→French-language works237,207→