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

Report

Exploring demographic differences in adverse consequences from gambling

Examining whether associations between 'at-risk' gambling behaviour (measured using the PGSI) and adverse consequences vary across demographic groups.

  1. Contents
  2. Introduction

Introduction

Gambling-related harm can have wide-ranging consequences for people's lives, affecting their finances, their relationships, and their health. One of the Gambling Commission's key priorities is to develop our understanding of how these harms are experienced and who is most at risk (the Commission, 2025b).

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (Ferris & Wynne, 2001 (opens in new tab)) is often used to assess patterns of gambling associated with increased risk. It consists of 9 questions and classifies participants into one of 4 categories based on their total score: 'non-problem gambling' (0), 'low risk' (1 to 2), 'moderate risk' (3 to 7), and 'problem gambling' (8 or more). While the PGSI is a valid tool for assessing gambling risk, it was not designed to measure gambling-related harm. A review commissioned by GambleAware noted that several questions within the PGSI focus on gambling behaviour (for example, 'Have you bet more than you could afford to lose?'), rather than the consequences of that behaviour (Ipsos, 2023 (opens in new tab)). As such, the PGSI provides only limited insight into the negative impacts that gambling can have on people's lives.

To address this gap, we developed a set of survey questions that assess the adverse consequences people might experience from gambling across 3 domains: resources, relationships, and health (the Commission, 2024a; Wardle et al., 2018 (opens in new tab)). The questions distinguish between severe consequences, which are clearly and unequivocally harmful (for example, relationship breakdown or violence), and potential adverse consequences, which vary in severity and could have more cumulative effects on people's lives (for example, reducing spend on everyday items).

The aim of this report was to explore whether some people may be more susceptible to potential and severe adverse consequences at lower levels of gambling risk (as indicated by the PGSI). This builds on secondary analysis of Year 2 (2024) Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) data, which highlighted a mismatch between PGSI scores and risk of adverse consequences (Gambling Commission, 2025a): we found that 2 percent of participants who scored 0 on the PGSI (categorised as 'non-problem' gambling) reported potential adverse consequences affecting their financial resources. Conversely, 9 percent of those scoring 8 or more on the PGSI (categorised as 'problem gambling') reported no adverse consequences to their finances. These findings suggest that gambling risk and adverse consequences are not always aligned within the population, and that relying on PGSI scores alone is unlikely to capture the full picture of gambling-related harm. This raises the possibility that reliance on the PGSI risks understanding harm at lower levels of gambling risk and overstating it at higher levels, particularly if susceptibility to harm varies across the population.

This report examined how associations between PGSI scores and potential and severe adverse consequences vary across different demographic groups. We conducted secondary analysis of Year 3 (2025) GSGB data to address the following research question: do associations between 'at-risk' gambling behaviour (measured using the PGSI) and potential and severe adverse consequences vary across demographic groups? Specifically, do some demographic groups report adverse consequences at lower levels of gambling risk?

Previous section
Executive summary - Exploring demographic differences in adverse consequences from gambling
Next section
Method - Exploring demographic differences in adverse consequences from gambling
Is this page useful?
Back to top