Report
Consumers' views on informed choice in gambling
Findings from a research project to explore how consumers understand the meaning of “informed choice” in gambling.
Qualitative sample design and recruitment
The research sample consisted of 22 individuals selected via purposive sampling to ensure a diverse and comprehensive range of perspectives. The primary eligibility criterion required all participants to have experience with various types of gambling, either currently or in the recent past. Participants were also screened using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), which was used both to segment the sample by risk and to determine the appropriate research method, as described below. Beyond these criteria, the sample contained a sufficient range and diversity: we sought a mix of people based on gender, location, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Sample breakdowns are provided in Appendix A. Participants were recruited through a specialist recruitment agency. Incentives were provided to all participants.
To capture the nuances of different gambling behaviours and varying levels of risk, the sample was segmented into two distinct methodologies: deliberative focus groups and in-depth interviews.
3 deliberative focus groups consisted of 6 participants each, all having a Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score below 8 and a diverse range of demographics. These groups were segmented by product type to allow for targeted discussions.
Group 1, sports bettors: a mix of casual and regular sports bettors, who had various levels of experience with other types of gambling.
Group 2, online casino and slots players: a mix of occasional and frequent players who predominantly engaged in online gambling such as slot games or casino-like games.
Group 3, land-based: a mix of individuals who gamble in land-based betting shops (that is, use machines in betting shops and/or place sports bets), who had various levels of experience with other types of gambling.
4 individual in-depth interviews were conducted with participants scoring 8 or above on the PGSI, indicating a higher risk of gambling-related harm. Interviews were used rather than group settings for this cohort to provide a safe, focused environment for discussing how informed choice and platform design intersect with higher-risk gambling behaviours.
Previous sectionRapid desk review Next section
Data collection
Last updated: 15 September 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.