PubMed · 10249694
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1980. Coping with fire and arson.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10249694/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The present research describes the proposal and validation of three gambling outcome measures, the Gambling Quantity and Perceived Norms Scale (GQPN), the Gambling Problem Index (GPI), and the Gambling Readiness to Change Questionnaire (GRTC). The study consisted of 560 undergraduate college students who completed a survey including the newly constructed measures and other measures designed to assess convergent validity. Results confirmed good reliability and convergent validity of all three measures. Implications for evaluating efficacy of treatment and prevention interventions are detailed.
This paper considers the application of two models for determining the optimal location and characteristics of a casino in a post-apartheid South Africa. The intention in developing the models was to allow provinces a facility for considering how to maximize the return to the stakeholders in the license award process, namely society at large, as represented by the provincial government, and the casino operator. The Allocation Model works on an estimate of total potential gambling spend and how that may be best distributed amongst a number of casinos. The Profitability model takes the estimated gaming spend from the allocation model and assesses the appropriate size and characteristics of the casino best suited to this level of gaming spend. It can then simulate levels of profitability for different proposed sizes and characteristics of proposed casinos. Together these models represent a powerful assessment mechanism for a country considering the introduction or radical changing of gaming legislation.
BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in the treatment of pathological gambling. METHOD: Patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling and scoring > or = 5 on the South Oaks Gambling Screen were enrolled if no other Axis I disorder was present. A 1-week placebo run-in phase was followed by 8 weeks' treatment with paroxetine or placebo. The initial paroxetine dose of 20 mg/day could be increased after week 2 by 10 mg/week to a maximum of 60 mg/day. Changes in clinical status were assessed using the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS) and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). Treatment-emergent symptoms were assessed weekly. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included in an intent-to-treat analysis (N = 23 paroxetine, N = 22 placebo). Statistically significantly greater reductions in the total score of the G-SAS were observed in the paroxetine group compared with the placebo group at weeks 6 through 8 (p = .003, .003, and .042, respectively). Improvement on the CGI was also significantly greater in the paroxetine than in the placebo group at the same timepoints (p = .033, .014, and .025, respectively). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the paroxetine group were responders at weeks 7 and 8 (p = .011 and .010, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of this trial indicate that paroxetine may be effective in the treatment of pathological gambling. There were no unexpected side effects from this treatment. However, additional studies with larger patient samples and a longer treatment phase are required to establish conclusively the efficacy and safety of paroxetine for this indication.