Report
Gambling Survey for Great Britain - Annual report (2025): Official statistics
This report contains findings from the third year (2025) of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB).
Consequences from gambling
Gambling can lead to a range of adverse consequences. This includes the experience of gambling disorder (a recognised health condition (opens in new tab)) but can also include wide ranging adverse consequences experienced either by the person who gambles or by their family, friends, and wider social networks. These consequences range in severity and include negative effects on physical and mental health, relationship discord and breakdown, and financial difficulties.
In the following section, data is first presented on the adverse consequences of gambling as measured using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (opens in new tab). This is followed by information on a wider range of adverse consequences from gambling which are not included within the PGSI (for example, conflict with family, social isolation, relationship breakdown, experience of violence and abuse, and suicide ideation or attempts).
Problem Gambling Severity Index
Further details can be found in the accompanying set of data tables for the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) Annual Report 2025, specifically tables D.1 to D.10.
The PGSI is used to measure both behavioural symptoms of gambling disorder and certain adverse consequences from gambling. The PGSI consists of 9 items that are rated on a 4 point-scale. Responses to the 9 PGSI questions are summed and a score ranging between 0 and 27 is computed. Scores are then grouped into the following categories:
- PGSI score of 0 (a person who gambles, but does not report experiencing any of the 9 behavioural symptoms or adverse consequences asked about)
- PGSI score of 1 to 2 (low risk gambling by which a person is unlikely to have experienced any adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling)
- PGSI score of 3 to 7 (moderate risk gambling by which a person may or may not have experienced adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling)
- PGSI score of 8 or higher (problem gambling by which a person will have experienced adverse consequences from their gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour. Involvement in gambling can be at any level but is likely to be heavy).
The PGSI categories represent a continuum of risk, ranging from those experiencing no adverse consequences or behavioural symptoms of disorder to those experiencing both. Estimates of gambling and its impacts vary substantially depending on survey methodology, with the GSGB typically reporting higher PGSI scores than more traditional face to face surveys. Research was undertaken to explore the impact of survey mode in more detail, finding that a good part of the difference in PGSI estimates between online and in-person interview surveys is due to downward biases as a result of interviewer administration.
In 2025, among all participants:
- 7.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 7.0 to 8.7) had a PGSI score of 1 to 2
- 3.5 percent (95 percent CI: 3.0 to 4.0) had a PGSI score of 3 to 7
- 2.4 percent (95 percent CI: 1.9 to 2.8) had a PGSI score of 8 or more.
Population estimates for PGSI can be calculated using the guidance available. For example, in 2025, estimates suggest approximately 1.3 million adults in Great Britain score 8 or more on the PGSI.
Among those who had gambled in the past 12 months:
- 13.2 percent had a PGSI score of 1 to 2
- 5.9 percent had a PGSI score of 3 to 7
- 4.0 percent had a PGSI score 8 or more.
Male participants who had gambled in the past 12 months were more likely to have higher PGSI scores (15.0 percent scored 1 to 2 on the PGSI, 8.0 percent scored 3 to 7 on the PGSI and 5.3 percent scored 8 or more on the PGSI) than female participants (11.4 percent scored 1 to 2 on the PGSI, 3.8 percent scored 3 to 7 on the PGSI and 2.7 percent scored 8 or more on the PGSI).
Younger participants who had gambled in the past 12 months were more likely to have higher PGSI scores than older participants; 10.4 percent of those aged 18 to 24 scored 8 or more on the PGSI and 0.8 percent aged 75 and over scored 8 or more on the PGSI. Similarly, 10.2 percent of those aged 18 to 24 scored 3 to 7 on the PGSI compared to 1.8 percent among those aged 75 and over.
The proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was 10 times higher for those who had taken part in betting on non-sports events in person, such as betting on the outcomes of elections or TV shows, relative to all participants who had gambled in the past 12 months.
The proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was also at least 5 times higher relative to all participants who had gambled in the past 12 months for several activities such as:
- casino games (on a machine, online, and in a casino)
- betting on non-sports events online
- football pools
- online slots
- bingo played online.
The proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was highest among those living in the most deprived areas (as measured using Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores presented by quintiles) of England. In England the proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was 4.5 percent among those living in the most deprived areas and 1.2 percent among those living in the least deprived areas. In Scotland, the proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was highest in the second most deprived quintile and lowest in the second least deprived quintile (4.6 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). In Wales, the proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was 1.7 percent; estimates by IMD quintile are not commented on due to small sample sizes.
Further exploration of the relationship between the profiles of those who participate in gambling more frequently and PGSI scores can be found in the Investigating the profiles of those who gamble more frequently report and the Exploring the relationship between gambling activities and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores report.
Adverse consequences from own gambling
Further details can be found in the accompanying set of data tables for the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) Annual Report 2025, specifically tables D.11 to D.21.
The GSGB includes a broader range of adverse consequences from gambling. These aim to add a greater level of insight into the adverse consequences of gambling that are experienced over and above the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). These questions, asked of those who had gambled in the past 12 months, were split into 2 types:
- Those categorised as severe adverse consequences, where any experience of them is highly likely to be harmful. This includes relationship breakdown, losing something of significant financial value, violence or abuse and crime. For these questions participants were directed to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to having experienced an adverse consequence.
- Those categorised as other potential adverse consequences, which are more likely to be harmful if experienced often or may be harmful depending on the individual’s specific circumstances. This includes spending less on everyday items, increased use of credit or savings to gamble, experience of conflict within relationships, feeling isolated, lying about the extent of gambling and poor work performance or work absences. For these questions participants were directed to answer ‘never’, ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ to having experienced an adverse consequence.
Severe adverse consequences from own gambling
In GSGB 2025, 2.7 percent of adults who had gambled in the past 12 months had experienced one or more severe consequence. Experiencing a relationship breakdown due to one’s own gambling was the most reported severe consequence (1.7 percent) among adults who had gambled in the past 12 months.
Male participants who had gambled in the past 12 months (3.5 percent) were more likely to experience at least one severe consequence due to their own gambling than female participants who had gambled in the past 12 months (1.8 percent).
Experiencing at least one severe consequence due to one’s own gambling decreased with age from 5.5 percent of those aged 18 to 34 who gambled in the past 12 months, to 0.7 percent of those aged 55 and over who gambled in the past 12 months.
Suicide ideation or attempts
Participants were asked if they had thought about taking their own life or had attempted to do so in the past 12 months. Those who answered yes were then asked if this was related to their gambling.
11.3 percent of all participants reported they had thought about or attempted taking their own life. 4.6 percent of those 11.3 percent reported that this was related to their gambling either a little or a lot.
Among those who gambled in the past 12 months and who reported they had thought about or attempted taking their own life, male participants (9.9 percent) were more likely to report than females (4.2 percent) that this was related to their gambling either a little or a lot.
It is worth noting, in an area which is very difficult to research, that the 11.3 percent of adults who had thought about or attempted taking their own life in the past 12 months represents an estimate higher than that reported in the most recent Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) (opens in new tab) in 2023 to 2024 (6.7 percent). This APMS data was based on questions asked face-to-face by an interviewer. APMS 2023 to 2024 also published results based on questions asked of participants within the self-completion section of the interview. This estimated that 25.5 percent had thought about suicide in the past 12 months and 7.7 percent had attempted suicide in the past 12 months. The APMS results indicate the potential impact of mode effects in survey research, which in line with the Sturgis (2025) findings (opens in new tab), reflects the general literature in this area. Because there is uncertainty as to which estimate is closer to the truth, data on gambling-related suicidality within GSGB is presented for those who reported past year thoughts about taking their own life or attempts only. Population prevalence estimates are not presented.
Other potential adverse consequences from own gambling
Among those who gambled in the past 12 months, the most reported potential adverse consequences due to one’s own gambling were:
- reducing spending on everyday items (6.4 percent reported this happening at least occasionally)
- lying to family (5.9 percent reported this happening at least occasionally)
- using savings or borrowing money (5.8 percent reported this happening at least occasionally).
Lying to family was the most reported adverse consequence among males who gambled in the past 12 months (8.0 percent reported this happening at least occasionally). Among females who gambled in the past 12 months reducing spending on everyday items was the most reported adverse consequence (5.0 percent reported this happening at least occasionally).
The relationship between demographic characteristics and the likelihood of experiencing adverse consequences from gambling is explored further in the Understanding the adverse consequences of gambling report.
Help seeking for own gambling
Of those who gambled in the past 12 months, 3.4 percent had sought support because of their own gambling. The proportion of those seeking support from each type of service (for example mental health services, food banks and/or welfare organisations, relationship counselling and gambling support services) was similar, ranging from 1.4 percent for gambling support services to 1.7 percent for mental health services.
The proportion of those who had gambled in the past 12 months reporting they had sought support because of their own gambling increased with PGSI score, from 0.8 percent of those with a PGSI score of 0 to 47.3 percent of those with a PGSI score of 8 or more.
Consequences from someone else’s gambling
The GSGB includes questions about the impact of someone else’s gambling. These questions covered the same set of severe and potential adverse consequences due to one’s own gambling outlined above. Questions were only asked of those who reported someone close to them gambled.
43.2 percent of all participants reported that someone close to them gambled, even if occasionally.
Severe adverse consequences from someone else's gambling
4.8 percent of participants reporting that someone close to them gambles had experienced one or more severe consequences from someone else’s gambling.
The most reported severe consequence from someone else’s gambling was relationship breakdown (3.3 precent).
Other potential adverse consequences from someone else's gambling
Of those who reported that someone close to them gambled, the most reported potential adverse consequences of someone else’s gambling were:
- experiencing health problems, including stress and anxiety (10.8 percent reported this happening at least occasionally)
- experiencing embarrassment, guilt or shame (10.0 percent reported this happening at least occasionally)
- experience of conflict or arguments (8.7 percent reported this happening at least occasionally).
Further exploration of affected others can be found in the Insights into affected others from GSGB report.
Help seeking due to someone else’s gambling
Participants who reported that someone close to them gambled were asked whether they had sought any help, support, or information as a result.
Of those who had reported that someone close to them gambled, 3.3 percent had sought some form of support due to someone else’s gambling. The proportion of participants who had sought support from each type of service was similar, ranging from 1.4 percent for food banks and welfare organisations to 1.6 for mental health services and relationship counselling and support services.
Previous sectionGSGB Annual report 2025 - Gambling participation and experience of gambling Next section
GSGB Annual report 2025 Appendix A - Online questionnaire
Last updated: 16 July 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.