The authors sought to examine short- and mid-term effectiveness of a group cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) in pathological gambling (PG) and to analyze predictors of therapy outcome. Two hundred ninety PG patients participated in the current study, all diagnosed on the basis of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) criteria, and were given manualized outpatient group CBT (16 weekly sessions). Specific assessment before and after the therapy and at 1, 3, and 6months follow-up was conducted. Logistic regression and survival analyses were applied. Outpatient group CBT was found to be effective, with abstinence rates of 76.1% by the end of therapy and 81.5% at 6months follow-up. The dropout rate during treatment decreased significantly after the fifth treatment session. Psychopathological distress (p=.040) and obsessive–compulsive symptoms were identified as factors predicting relapse and dropout, respectively. These findings suggest that group CBT is effective for treating pathological gamblers. Several psychopathological and personality traits were identified as outcome predictors.

Kognitive Gruppen-Verhaltenstherapie für pathologisches Spielen: Analyse der Effektivität und der Prädiktoren des Therapieergebnisses (Outcome)

Wms slot games online, free. Evaluate the car wash and pleating hair are there effectiveness and ineffectiveness Ask for details; Follow Report by Dorcastendayi36 Log in to add a comment Answers People can earn money. Easy an at an affordable price There are too many car washes 4.0 2.3.

Die Autoren untersuchten einerseits die kurzfristige und mittelfristige Effektivität kognitiver Gruppen-Verhaltenstherapie (CBT) bei pathologischem Spielen (PG) und andererseits wurden die Prädiktoren für das Therapieergebnis (Outcome) analysiert. 290 Patienten – pathologische Spieler – nahmen an dieser Studie teil, wurden mit Hilfe des DSM-IV diagnostiziert und bekamen eine angeleitete ambulante kognitive Gruppen-Verhaltenstherapie (16 wöchentliche Sitzungen). Es wurden vor und nach der Therapie, sowie nach einem, drei und sechs Monaten (follow-up) spezifische Beurteilungen vorgenommen. Logistische Regression und survival Analysen fanden hierfür verwendet. Die ambulante kognitive Gruppen-Verhaltenstherapie erwies sich – mit Abstinenzraten von 76,1% nach Beendigung der Therapie und 81,5% nach 6 Monaten – als effektiv. Die drop-out-Rate während der Behandlung nahm signifikant nach der fünften Sitzung ab. Psychopathologisches Leiden (p.040) und zwanghafte Symptome konnten als Faktoren identifiziert werden, die sowohl einen Rückfall wie auch ein vorzeitiges Abbrechen der Therapie (drop-out) vorhersagen. Diese Ergebnisse zeigten, dass kognitive Verhaltenstherapie (CBT) effektiv für die Behandlung pathologischen Spielens ist. Mehrere psychopathologische Merkmale und Persönlichkeitseigenschaften wurden als Ergebnisprädiktoren identifiziert.

Evaluate The Effectiveness And Ineffectiveness Of Gambling Car Guarding And Car Wash

Un traitement cognitif comportemental du jeu pathologique: analyse d'efficacité et facteurs de prédiction de l'issue

Les auteurs ont voulu examiner l'efficacité à court et moyen délai d'une thérapie de groupe cognitive comportementale (CBT) pour jeu pathologique, et analyser les facteurs de prédiction des résultats. 290 patients à JP ont participé dans cette étude, tous avec un diagnostic DSM-IV (4^e édition), et ils ont bénéficié d'une TCC ambulatoire de groupe (16 séances hebdomadaires). Des évaluations spécifiques avant et après la thérapie et à 1, 3 et 6 mois après la fin ont été faites. Une régression logistique et une analyse de survie étaient appliquées. La thérapie TCC ambulatoire de groupe s'est avérée efficace, avec des taux d'abstinence de 76.1% en fin de thérapie et de 81.5% 6 mois après. Le taux de ruptures a diminué de façon significative après la 5^e séance. La perturbation psychopathologique (p.040) et des symptômes obsessionnels-compulsifs étaient identifiés comme des facteurs prédisant soit la rechute, soit la rupture. Ces résultats suggèrent que la TCC de groupe est efficace pour traiter les joueurs pathologiques. Plusieurs traits psychopathologiques et de personnalité pouvaient prédire le résultat.

https://championlucky.netlify.app/mardi-gras-casino-online-games.html. Mardigras Slot Machine. Mardigras is a colourful fruit machine from Multi Slot based on the famous festival. This game features a rich purple background filled with carnival dancers, masks and fireworks. Simple in style, this slot is a typical fruit machine with 3 reels, lucky sevens and bar signs. Offering tried and true favorites like Craps, Blackjack, Roulette and much more, Mardi Gras is sure to bring a thrilling experience to any table game of your choosing. Guests must be 21 or older to play our West Virginia table games. Whatever your game, our Mardi Gras-themed casino has one for you! Our slot floor includes: Denominations of penny, nickel, quarter, fifty-cents, one-dollar, two-dollar, five-dollar, ten-dollars and twenty-five dollar machines More than 250 varieties of games, including reels and video.

Tratamiento grupal cognitivo-comportamental para juego patológico: análisis de efectividad y predictores del resultado de la terapia

Los autores buscaron examinar la efectividad a mediano plazo de una terapia grupal cognitivo-comportamental (CBT) en el juego patológico (PG) y analizar predictores del resultado de la terapia. Doscientos noventa pacientes PG participaron en este estudio, todos diagnosticados sobre la base de los criterios del Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de desórdenes mentales (4ta. edición), a los que se suministró un grupo manualizado de pacientes externos CBT (16 sesiones semanales). Se realizó una evaluación específica antes y después de la terapia a los 1, 3 y 6 meses de seguimiento. Se aplicó regresión logística y análisis de supervivencia. El grupo de pacientes externos CBT resultó efcctivo, con tasas de abstinencia del 76.1% hacia el final de la terapia y 81.5% a los seis meses de seguimiento. La tasa de deserción durante el tratamiento decreció significativamente luego de la quinta sesión. Se identificaron como factores predictores de la recaída y la deserción el distress psicopatológico (p.040) y los síntomas obsesivo-compulsivos, respectivamente. Estos hallazgos sugieren que el grupo CBT es efectivo para tratar jugadores patológicos. Se identificaron también como predictores de resultado varios rasgos psicopatológicos y de personalidad.

Tratamento de grupo cognitivo-comportamental para o jogo patológico: análise da eficácia e preditores de resultados terapêuticos

Os autores procuraram examinar a eficácia a curto e a médio prazo de um tratamento de grupo cognitivo-comportamental (TCC) para o jogo patológico (JP) e analisar os preditores dos resultados terapêuticos. Duzentos e noventa pacientes JP participaram no estudo, todos diagnosticados segundo os critérios do DSM-IV, aos quais foi aplicado TCC manualizado em grupo ambulatório (16 sess[otilde]es semanais). Foi realizada uma avaliação específica antes, depois da terapia e a 1, 3 e 6 meses de seguimento. Foi aplicada análise de regressão logística e análise de sobrevivência. Verificou-se que o grupo TCC em ambulatório é eficaz, com uma taxa de abstenção de 76.1% no final da terapia, e 81.5% a 6 meses de seguimento. A taxa de abandono durante o tratamento diminuiu significativamente após a quinta sessão de tratamento. O nível de perturbação psicopatológica (p.040) e os sintomas obsessivo-compulsivos foram identificados como factores preditores de recaída e abandono respectivamente. Estes dados sugerem que o tratamento de grupo cognitivo comportamental é eficaz para os jogadores patológicos. Vários traços psicopatológicos e de personalidade foram identificados como factores preditores do resultado terapêutico.

Trattamento cognitivo comportamentale di gruppo per gioco d'azzardo patologico: analisi di efficacia e predittori di esito terapeutico

Gli autori hanno misurato l'efficacia a breve e medio termine della terapia cognitivo comportamentale (TCC) di gruppo nel gioco d'azzardo patologico (GAP) e hanno analizzato i predittori di esito. 290 pazienti GAP hanno partecipato allo studio, tutti diagnosticati in base al DSM-.IV e hanno ricevuto TCC manualizzata ambulatoriale di gruppo per 16 sedute settimanali. E’ stato eseguito un accertamento specifico prima e dopo il trattamento e a 1, 3 e 6 mesi di follow-up. La terapia era efficace, con tassi di astensione del 76,1% alla fine del trattamento e dell'81.5% a 6 mesi. I tassi di abbandono durante il trattamento diminuivano significativamente dopo la quinta seduta. Il disagio psicologico e i sintomi ossessivo.compulsivi erano rispettivamente predittori di ricadute e abbandoni. Questi risultati suggeriscono che la TCC di gruppo è efficace per trattare il GAP. Parecchi tratti psicopatologici e di personalità sono stati identificati come predittori di esito.

Anyone who’s thought about it for more than 15 seconds has realized that the administration-to-program ratio (“What percentage of my donation goes to the cause versus to overhead?”) is a useless measure for making good donation decisions. So there’s a social business movement under way to begin rating charities not on overhead but on effectiveness.

Unfortunately, this “effectiveness” movement may prove as inadequate to the task of helping the public make good donation decisions as the “overhead” religion it seeks to replace.

The reason is simple: a failure of imagination. Not necessarily about how to measure effectiveness, but about money — the serious money it would take to build the assessment apparatus required to provide objective, rich, and multidimensional information on the work of the estimated 700,000 active charities in America, and to update that information every year.

Well-meaning social entrepreneurs (around 65 of them by one count) and one established watchdog (Charity Navigator) are building, planning, or have created platforms to measure charities’ effectiveness. Most take varying numbers of indicators that they believe measure effectiveness and boil them down to a letter grade or a star system, which they then serve up to a donating public hungry for a simple and quick way to make giving decisions.

Most of these efforts are unfunded or underfunded. And while the literature is full of bright ideas about how we ought to be measuring effectiveness, it is devoid of any discussion about how these new efforts will marshal any more money for it than is currently available to measure overhead. Which is a pittance — the combined annual budgets for the three watchdogs (Charity Navigator, Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and American Institute for Philanthropy) is about $3 million annually, or 0.000013% of the $225 billion that American individuals donate to charity annually. It’s less than a pittance; it’s statistically zero.

And despite their best intentions, with budgets resembling zero, the job of evaluating all of America’s charities and coming up with a meaningful guide for donors has remained beyond the reach of these organizations.

The enemy was never just overhead. It was and is oversimplification. The problem isn’t just a lack of a new measure. It’s a lack of resources. And a lack of resources necessarily leads to over-simplification.

We are about to replace one simplistic approach with another. Why? We think it’s the best we can afford. Worse, we think it’s the best we deserve because, ironically, evaluation expense is a kind of overhead, and we’re not supposed to spend any money on that, so we need to do it on the cheap. So the very measure we’re trying to replace is the measure that is unconsciously driving the new “solution.”

Here is where the potential danger lies with the effectiveness movement:

ET.This new version of the song, which Midland sang on the 2019 collaborative Brooks & Dunn, leaves much unchanged from the original recording — save for a few extra voices in the mix. The two take turns singing lead while Kix Brooks adds some harmonica spice and Midland’s Jess Carson and Cameron Duddy provide harmony vocals and show off their rock star moves.Luke Combs, Jon Pardi, Bretty Young, Lanco singer Brandon Lancaster, and Cody Johnson also join Brooks & Dunn to sing some of their classic hits (as recorded for Reboot) on the hour-long episode of Crossroads. Boot scootin boogie slot machine. Filmed in the heart of downtown Nashville, the episode premieres on CMT on Friday, June 28th, at 10:00 p.m. Midland leader Mark Wystrach, dressed in a white t-shirt (proclaiming himself “Picket Captain”) that looks like it could stand a visit to a washing machine, takes the opening verse before handing it over to Ronnie Dunn.

• A focus on the wrong thing. Effectiveness is not what we should be measuring, but rather commitment to effectiveness. As Sean Stannard Stockton argues, if we start measuring effectiveness, we’ll create a market around the problems that are easiest to solve (lack of soup, for example, with effectiveness measured by how many bowls of soup are served at a soup kitchen). Much easier to serve soup and measure your effectiveness than to try and end homelessness and measure that.
• A fragmented network. We are building multiple, redundant, poorly resourced businesses, each with their own standards. This has the potential to confuse the general public as much as the different overhead standards of the three watchdogs have over the years.
• Lack of meaningful scale. The watchdogs never achieved scale. The largest among them, Charity Navigator, evaluates about 8,000 of the active charities in the country, or 1.1%. And none of the new effectiveness organizations are on a trajectory to get much larger, even using relatively inexpensive and simple evaluation methods. For example, GiveWell, one of the best of the bunch, measures only 413 organizations, or .059% of the active charities in the country. Why is this so? None has yet discovered a revenue model that can achieve dramatic growth. Charities are reluctant to pay much for the service, and most of the new efforts are trying to offer information to the public for free, so there’s no revenue to be had there. And big investment dollars aren’t going to flow until the opportunity for big profits are demonstrated.
• Flawed tools. Because of a lack of resources, these efforts will revert to free or inexpensive evaluating tools that are flawed. For example, some are planning to measure effectiveness, in part, by looking at how much a charity talks about effectiveness on its website — a system that is easily gamed. Others post ratings from donors and supporters. That’s inexpensive, but retail donors and supporters may not be objective or informed enough to evaluate an organization’s commitment to effectiveness. The donor isn’t the user of the charity’s programs the homeless, the poor, and so on are. They’re not the ones writing the majority of reviews, so there’s no valid corollary to a Yelp-like evaluation system where, for example, the person who gets his hair cut is the one rating the barber.
• Oversimplified metrics. Also because of a lack of resources, we will forgo rich information. Everything will be reduced to numbers, stars, letter grades, and so on, instead of dynamic story-telling content, violating the no-numbers-without-story, no-story-without-numbers rule. This will lead to injustices, same as the current watchdog systems, penalizing good organizations and rewarding mediocre ones.

Evaluate The Effectiveness And Ineffectiveness Of Gambling In South Africa

We’re trying to do an end run around the maxim that you get what you pay for and we think we’re being efficient in doing it. We’re not. The opportunity costs of not having the right system are huge.

I continue to believe we need one consolidated, massive national apparatus for assessment. It should consist of teams of objective observers — a kind of Peace Corps for evaluation — that will collect substantive and objective data, annually, on every operating charity in America and put it online in a beautiful iTunes-like user interface. The system must include storytelling content that goes beyond metrics: 1) video documentary of staff and clients, professionally shot and edited, 2) meaningful surveys of clients, 3) statements of dreams and visions, 4) digestible, lay-friendly prose summarizing agency findings, polished by copywriters, 5) innovations that come from the best thinking of the likes of Charity Navigator, GiveWell, Great Nonprofits, and others, based not on what they can afford, but what they dream, and 5) measures of commitment to impact — not impact itself, but underlying intentions. This has to be a web destination so seductive with rich media on social change that people get addicted to it.

We will need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get this right. Too expensive? Consider that $500 million is 0.22% of annual individual giving to charity — hardly too much of an investment to ask to direct and evaluate all of that giving.

Who will pay for it? I don’t know. It may have to be the government. The market incentives don’t seem right for either the public, the charities, philanthropists, or investors right now. The large charities, content with the high grades they get for low overhead, don’t have any incentive to fund it. And it’s hard to quantify the long-term upstream value that will get produced, which means it will be hard to make a case for investor funding. The public wants everything online for free, and seems currently unwilling to fund charity evaluation on any big scale with private donations, but motivating them to do so could kill two birds with one stone — we could get the funding and an educated public. If we could show that we can produce sales revenues, that could get investors interested. Interestingly, Charity Navigator has demonstrated public willingness to donate at small levels for information.

Tools To Evaluate Effectiveness

What’s the return on investment here? First, we’d get a market that functions on proper information (as opposed to bad information: a market that makes decisions based on overhead, for instance, is a market sending money to the wrong places). The value of a properly functioning market for philanthropy is almost inestimable. Second, we’d get greater public trust in charities and better understanding of the realities of their work and challenges. The value of this, too, could be huge, in terms of new donations to charity.

Right now we spend about $4 a year per charity on evaluation. That’s insanity. It’s malfeasance. We’ll get what we pay for. More than anything else, this is what has to change.