Report
Exploring the relationship between gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores
This report explores the relationship between participation in individual gambling activities in the past 12 months and Problem Gambling Severity Index Scores (PGSI).
Discussion
The Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) Year 1 report (2023) showed a substantially high proportion of people who gambled on activities like casino games (online or in person), online fruit and or slots and betting on other sports events (online or in person) had Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores of 8 or more. These data are useful for understanding the risk profile of people who engage with these activities. Similar data have been used previously to better understand the number of interactions gambling operators should make with higher risk consumers, irrespective of whether the relationship between the activity and PGSI score is driven by other factors.
It is, however, also important to explore whether other factors could explain these associations to better understand which products are associated with greater risk. The analysis presented here shows that casino gambling (either online or in person), fruit and slots machine gambling (either online or in person), betting on other sports events (either online or in person), betting on sports and or races in person, gambling on non-National Lottery online instant wins and gambling on non-National Lottery Scratchcards are all significantly associated with PGSI scores of 8 or more when broader gambling involvement and demographic and socio-economic status were taken into account.
Prior analysis of the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007 (opens in new tab) data suggested that measures of gambling involvement better characterised gambling disorder than engagement in specific activities. Other studies disagreed with this conclusion, noting that some gambling forms are more strongly correlated with the experience of problem gambling and that these formats require additional regulatory attention. The evidence presented here supports the latter conclusion, with findings from the GSGB year 1 (2023) data showing that activities like casino gambling and fruit and slot games, undertaken either online or in person, were significantly associated with PGSI scores of 8 or more.
Notably, many of the gambling activities most closely associated with a PGSI score of 8 or more represent those which are faster, continuous gambling formats (casino, slots, online instant wins). However, the results also highlighted betting on non-sports events and betting on sports/races at in person as being significantly associated with a PGSI score of 8 or more. It is less clear what is driving these associations. Betting on non-sports events is a low prevalence activity and previous studies, such as the British Gambling Prevalence survey series, typically demonstrated relatively high proportions of people experiencing problem gambling among those betting on non-sporting events. Low prevalence among the population and increased popularity among those experiencing adverse consequences may explain some of these associations.
Future replication of this analysis with subsequent years of the GSGB would be beneficial to explore the stability and consistency of the findings reported here. Supplementing year 1 data with that from future years will also allow analyses to be examined separately for men and women and will allow further examination of the association between specific gambling activities and PGSI scores among those who gamble more regularly (that is those who gambled in the past 4 weeks). Base sizes for year 1 data did not permit this level of analysis.
The results presented here are associations and whilst controls include wider gambling activity and certain demographic and economic characteristics, there may be other, unmeasured, factors underlying the observed associations. This requires further investigation, and the replication of analysis from different surveys with different available measures.
Nonetheless, the analysis presented in this report replicates the analytical approach used by LaPlante et al, extending it to include controls for gambling frequency and demographic and socio-economic status. The results challenge their conclusion that “greater gambling involvement better characterises disordered gambling than does any specific type of gambling”. Gambling involvement is clearly an important factor, as evidenced by the sharp attenuation of odds between models 1 and 2, but some activities remain strongly associated with PGSI scores of 8 or more even once this was taken into account, highlighting potential increased risk of adverse consequences among those who engage in these activities.
Previous sectionPGSI Report - Results Next section
PGSI Report - Appendix A
Last updated: 6 February 2025
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.