Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blogs
An image of Helen Bryce on the right hand side of the picture, against a dark green background, with the title of the blog "Using Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) to explore the relationship between gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores" on the left hand side of the picture.

Using Gambling Survey for Great Britain to explore the relationship between gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index scores

Our Head of Statistics, Helen Bryce, explores the relationship between gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores.

Posted 6 February 2025 by Helen Bryce

Today, we have published a second deep dive report building on the findings from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) Annual Report (2023) which was published last Summer.

In this report we explore the relationship between gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores, which follows last week’s report on motivations for gambling. Today’s publication enhances our understanding of product characteristics and risk, Theme 5 in our Evidence Gaps and Priorities and builds on previous research by La Plante et al (opens in new tab) and Mazar et al, 2020 (opens in new tab), using up to date data collected by the GSGB. The report has been written by academics at the University of Glasgow.

The updated gambling activity list created during the development of the GSGB means that the analysis has been undertaken in relation to a set of gambling activities which now represent those available to consumers today, including a much better representation of online activities.

In the GSGB Annual Report (2023) we reported on the relative difference in those scoring 8 or more on the PGSI by activity compared to all those who gambled in the last 12 months. But we did receive feedback from stakeholders asking if we had considered how these findings might differ when you take into account someone’s overall level of engagement with gambling or their demographic or socio economic profile. The deep dive report published today does just that.

The ability to be able to separate out the influence from these other factors helps to sharpen our understanding of product risk. The study shows that irrespective of someone’s wider engagement in gambling or their demographic profile, there remains a significant association between some activities and the experience of problem gambling. These are non National Lottery (NL) scratchcards and instant win games, betting on sports/racing in person, betting on the outcome of events, all types of casino games and fruit and slot machines – many of these activities we know are played for reasons relating to coping, escapism and challenge.

However, it also shows that the association between some activities and the experience of problem gambling no longer remains once wider gambling involvement and other factors are taken into account; these activities are charity lotteries, NL scratchcards and instant win games, betting on sports and racing online, football pools and bingo – both that played online and in person. This does not mean that the customer profile of these activities will not include people who are experiencing problem gambling, but it does show that the activity itself is not associated with higher PGSI scores.

In summary we found that gambling involvement, measured by the number of activities and frequency of gambling, remain important predictors of the experience of problem gambling alongside engagement in specific activities. The findings from this short report do not change our assessment of the gambling landscape that we shared with DCMS as part of our input to the Gambling Act Review – but instead it builds on our existing understanding and provides further perspectives to add to our existing evidence base, which takes into consideration a broad range of evidence from different sources.

Just as importantly though it is another key step in our analytical plan to carefully and systematically build out our understanding of the GSGB dataset, such that we can lift the bonnet of top-line general statistics and show the different workings underneath that drive our regulatory thinking and work. I know a number of you are waiting to get your hands on the raw data from the GSGB so that you can carry out your own analysis and I am pleased to say that this has now been submitted to the UK Data Service ready for publication within the next six weeks.

Is this page useful?
Back to top