Effects of personalized and normative feedback via the Positive Play Quiz on responsible gambling intention, self‐efficacy and behavior: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To evaluate whether a personalized and normative feedback (PNF) intervention for responsible gambling increases gambling insight as well as intention and self‐efficacy to engage in responsible gambling and behavioral engagement. Design Two‐arm randomized controlled trial. Outcome measurements occurred post‐randomization and 3 months later. Setting Online, Canada. Participants Canadian community members who gambled at a land‐based casino or online in the last 3 months [61.9% men; mean age = 56.52 (standard deviation = 14.80)] recruited via an online panel (n = 4091). Intervention and comparator Participants were randomized to receive PNF (n = 1940) or no feedback (n = 2151). Measurements Primary outcomes included gambling insight, intentions and self‐efficacy to engage in seven responsible gambling behaviors post‐randomization as well as engagement in these behaviors during the 3‐month follow‐up. Findings Post‐intervention, participants receiving PNF (relative to no feedback) had greater gambling insight (d = 0.32, P = 4.59e‐25) as well as greater intentions and self‐efficacy to learn about how the games they play work (dintention = 0.31, P = 4.92e‐24; dself‐efficacy = 0.25, P = 4.35e‐16), learn about the odds of winning at these games (dintention = 0.30, P = 1.43e‐21; dself‐efficacy = 0.25, P = 2.13e‐15) and use operator‐provided tools to help limit their gambling (dintention = 0.20, P = 1.36e‐10; dself‐efficacy = 0.18, P = 3.92e‐9). However, post‐intervention differences in intention and self‐efficacy to limit time and money spent gambling, openness about gambling with others and balancing gambling with other activities were not observed. Meaningful increases in behavioral engagement 3 months later were observed but were not significant. Conclusions PNF for responsible gambling (relative to no feedback) appears to increase gambling insight, intentions and self‐efficacy to engage in gambling literacy and use of limit‐setting tools. Exploratory analyses indicated receiving PNF (relative to no feedback) led to behavioral changes during the 3‐month follow‐up period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".