Addiction substitution and concurrent recovery in gambling disorder: Who substitutes and why?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: When individuals recover from gambling disorder, their involvement in other potentially addictive substances and behaviors may also subsequently increase (substitution) or decrease (concurrent recovery). The objectives of this study were to identify and compare recovery processes associated with substitution and concurrent recovery in gambling disorder. Methods: A mixed-method study was conducted with 185 people who were recovered from gambling disorder. Semi-structured interviews were used to: (i) establish onset and recovery of gambling disorder as well as other substance and behavioral addictions; and (ii) assess processes (e.g., reasons, emotional state, helpfulness) associated with addiction substitution and concurrent recovery. Participants also completed a survey assessing demographic characteristics, gambling behaviors, and psychological characteristics to compare demographic and clinical differences between participants who engaged in addiction substitution, concurrent recovery, or neither (controls). Results: The most frequently reported reason for engaging in addiction substitution was as a substitute coping mechanism. The most reported reason for engaging in concurrent recovery was due to the addictions being mutually influenced. Negative emotional states were common when engaging in both addiction substitution and concurrent recovery. Although the three groups did not differ on gambling characteristics, addiction substitution was associated with greater underlying vulnerabilities including childhood adversity, impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, and, maladaptive coping skills. Conclusion: Transdiagnostic treatments that target the underlying mechanisms of addictions may reduce the likelihood of engaging in addiction substitution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".