The relationship between gambling accessibility and Hong Kong people's participation in gambling activities

Prior foreign research showed significant positive relationship between geographical accessibility, gambling advertising and gambling behaviors. This paper, using data from two studies, describes and discusses the change in prevalence of gambling in Hong Kong with the liberalization of gambling activities in Macau. Results mirror the findings of foreign studies. Analysis showed that the groups who indicated that they were mostly influenced by the increased number of Macau casinos and gambling advertising were those aged 20–39, those with tertiary or above education, and the problem and pathological gamblers. Policy makers and gaming operators' effort to implement responsible gambling policies to prevent gambling addiction are discussed.     

I was,I am,I will be: Identity and time perspective before and during COVID-19

The ways in which youth reach a stable identity, a core developmental task of emerging adulthood, are intertwined with their perceptions of the past, present, and future. Additionally, these dynamics are embedded in and are strongly influenced by the socio-historical context and concurrent events, such as COVID-19. This study examines how different groups of emerging adults (university students and workers) engage in identity processes in educational/vocational and interpersonal domains and frame their perspective of time before (N = 299, M_age = 21.90; 51.4% females) and during the pandemic (N = 497; M_age = 23.11; 68.2% females). Significant differences in identity processes and time perspective emerged between the two cohorts. Moreover, significant associations between identity and time perspective were found to be similar across different identity domains and cohorts.     

Should the two-trial paradigm still be the gold standard in drug assessment?

Two significant pivotal trials are usually required for a new drug approval by a regulatory agency. This standard requirement is known as the two-trial paradigm. However, several authors have questioned why we need exactly two pivotal trials, what statistical error the regulators are trying to protect against, and potential alternative approaches. Therefore, it is important to investigate these questions to better understand the regulatory decision-making in the assessment of drugs' effectiveness. It is common that two identically designed trials are run solely to adhere to the two-trial rule. Previous work showed that combining the data from the two trials into a single trial (one-trial paradigm) would increase the power while ensuring the same level of type I error protection as the two-trial paradigm. However, this is true only under a specific scenario and there is little investigation on the type I error protection over the whole null region. In this article, we compare the two paradigms by considering scenarios in which the two trials are conducted in identical or different populations as well as with equal or unequal size. With identical populations, the results show that a single trial provides better type I error protection and higher power. Conversely, with different populations, although the one-trial rule is more powerful in some cases, it does not always protect against the type I error. Hence, there is the need for appropriate flexibility around the two-trial paradigm and the appropriate approach should be chosen based on the questions we are interested in.