Efficacy of a novel online integrated treatment for problem gambling and tobacco smoking: Results of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Problem gambling and tobacco use are highly comorbid among adults. However, there are few treatment frameworks that target both gambling and tobacco use simultaneously (i.e., an integrated approach), while also being accessible and evidence-based. The aim of this two-arm open label RCT was to examine the efficacy of an integrated online treatment for problem gambling and tobacco use. Methods: A sample of 209 participants (Mage = 37.66, SD = 13.81; 62.2% female) from North America were randomized into one of two treatment conditions (integrated [n = 91] or gambling only [n = 118]) that lasted for eight weeks and consisted of seven online modules. Participants completed assessments at baseline, after treatment completion, and at 24-week follow-up. Results: While a priori planned generalized linear mixed models showed no condition differences on primary (gambling days, money spent, time spent) and secondary outcomes, both conditions did appear to significantly reduce problem gambling and smoking behaviours over time. Post hoc analyses showed that reductions in smoking and gambling craving were correlated with reductions in days spent gambling, as well as with gambling disorder symptoms. Relatively high (versus low) nicotine replacement therapy use was associated with greater reductions in gambling behaviours in the integrated treatment condition. Discussion and conclusions: While our open label RCT does not support a clear benefit of integrated treatment, findings suggest that changes in smoking and gambling were correlated over time, regardless of treatment condition, suggesting that more research on mechanisms of smoking outcomes in the context of gambling treatment may be relevant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".