This study was undertaken by the Flinders Human Behaviour and Health Research Unit of Flinders University, Adelaide, under the heading of four separate studies that used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The four studies were:
- A Literature Review.
- A Delphi consultation, which aimed to provide a consensus on a definition of relapse in problem gambling, potential predictors and recommended measures for relapse studies in problem gambling.
- A Focus Group Study with therapists from different therapy or counselling services, and clients and partners who were users of the services or from support groups.
- An Observational Study, which used the findings of the three previous studies to measure relapse, and, where possible, to use validated measures of potential predictors of relapse to see which were the strongest.
This report comprises (Section 1) the Executive Summary and Final Report and (Section 2) the four component research reports.In reading the report it is recommended that the Final Report is read first so that the framework of the study as a whole can be best appreciated as the conclusions are based on the findings of all four studies.
- The Executive Summary provides a synopsis of all the components of the relapse research project and provides recommendations for clinical practice and further research.
- The Final Report provides an overview of the relapse project and includes a summary of the methodology and the major findings of each of the four separate studies, drawing them together to address the objectives of the project and a revised model of relapse in problem gambling. It includes recommendations for future research.
- The four component studies have been written up independently. They are presented as individual research reports as each was a substantial, stand alone piece of work
Report Page 153 ñ Executive Summary (Focus group study)
The Flinders University research team has identified an error in the count of focus group numbers with the 36 participants recorded in the report found to be 30 participants.
This was accounted for by double counting of some participants by their multiple role descriptions and including the facilitators in the group count.
The correct number of participants:
SGTS: Clinicians - 8 participants
SGTS: Clients and Significant Others - 10 participants
Non-Government Agency Counsellors - 7 participants
Pokies Anonymous - 5 participants
An independent auditor checked the audiotapes and transcripts and confirmed that there were 30 individuals and that data collected from the transcripts was authentic. They concluded that the analysis was not affected by the incorrect participant count. The auditor concluded that as the transcripts alone comprised the raw data used in the analyses, the integrity of the data and the analyses were not affected by the erroneously reported participant count.
Professor Malcolm Battersby.