Report
Insights into affected others from the GSGB
Insights into affected others from the GSGB
Methods
The Statistics on gambling participation – Annual report Year 2 (2024): Official statistics collected data from 19,714 adults aged 18 years and older living in Great Britain. Fieldwork was carried out between January 2024 and January 2025, consisting of 4 waves running quarterly. Details regarding the methodology of the GSGB can be found in our technical report.
Questions regarding adverse consequences in relation to someone else’s gambling were asked to participants who reported that they knew someone close to them who gambles, irrespective of whether they live with that person.
Each consequence question relates to one of the following 3 domains: resources, relationships, and health. These domains are specified by Wardle and others (2018) framework for action on gambling-related harm (opens in new tab).
Potential adverse consequences
The following questions were asked to assess potential adverse consequences relating to someone else’s gambling. Participants were asked how often in the past 12 months someone else's gambling had caused them to:
...reduce or cut back your spending on everyday items such as food, bills and clothing? (resources)
...reduce your savings or increase your use of credit, such as credit cards, overdrafts and loans? (resources)
...experience conflict or arguments with friends, family and/or work colleagues? (relationships)
...feel isolated from other people, left out or feel completely alone? (relationships)
...lie to family, or others, to hide the extent of someone else’s gambling? (relationships)
...be absent or perform poorly at work or study? (resources)
Or, considering someone else's gambling in the last 12 months:
7*. Have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money because of someone else’s gambling? (resources)
8*. Have you felt that someone else’s gambling has caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety? (health)
9*. Have you felt that someone else’s gambling has made you feel embarrassment, guilt or shame? (health)
Response options for all questions were ‘Never’, ‘Occasionally’, ‘Fairly often’, and ‘Very often’.
Questions 7, 8, and 9 – indicated with * – are derived from the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), which asks participants about their own gambling behaviour. When examining the impacts of one’s own gambling behaviour, these questions are asked as part of the 9-point PGSI question set, with the remaining potential adverse consequences (questions 1 to 6) asked in a separate question set. When examining the impacts of someone else’s gambling, these questions are similarly asked in 2 separate question sets for clarity. These PGSI items are included in the GSGB's list of potential adverse consequences due to their similarity to frequently reported adverse consequences identified during the development of this consequence set.
Participants who responded ‘Occasionally’, ‘Fairly often’, or ‘Very often’ to at least one potential adverse consequence were included in the analysis. Our previous assessment of the consequences question set showed that participants who experienced adverse consequences at least ‘occasionally’ exhibit significantly higher PGSI scores (indicating higher-risk gambling behaviour) and poorer mental wellbeing (assessed using the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) compared with those answering ‘Never’. As such, we consider participants responding at least ‘occasionally’ to have been affected by someone else’s gambling for the purposes of this analysis.
Severe adverse consequences
The following questions were asked to assess severe adverse consequences relating to someone else’s gambling. Participants were asked whether in the past 12 months:
Have you lost something of significant financial value such as your home, business, car or been declared bankrupt because of someone else’s gambling?
Has your relationship with someone close to you such as a spouse, partner, family member or friend broken down?
Have you experienced violence or abuse because of someone else’s gambling?
Have you committed a crime in order to finance someone else's gambling or to pay their gambling debts?
Response options were ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Support services
The following questions were asked to assess the use of support services by participants due to someone else’s gambling. Participants were asked whether in the past 12 months:
Has someone else’s gambling led you to seek help, support or information online, in-person or by telephone from…
…mental health services?
…food banks or other welfare organisations?
…relationship counselling and support services?
…gambling support services?
Response options were ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Consequences due to own gambling
Questions relating to potential adverse consequences4, severe adverse consequences and support services were also asked to participants if they had gambled in the past 12 months, in relation to their own gambling, with relevant changes in question wording to reflect this.
Defining an affected other
For this analysis we defined an affected other as someone who:
- knew someone close to them who gambled
- experienced at least one potential adverse consequence (at least occasionally) due to someone else’s gambling in the past 12 months
- experienced at least one severe adverse consequence due to someone else’s gambling in the past 12 months.
Throughout this report, any reference to ‘consequences’ (unless otherwise specified) refers to both types of adverse consequences described above.
Strengths of this analysis
It is important to recognise that this research has its strength and limitations. We first outline its strengths, followed by its limitations.
This research uses data from the GSGB which uses a push-to-web approach and stratified random probability sample. This provides nationally representative population estimates and enables a large sample size to be achieved. Further details on the GSGB methodology can be found in our technical report.
Rather than solely relying on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), this research explores the additional questions relating to severe and potential adverse consequences. These questions were rolled onto the GSGB and asked both to participants who had gambled in the past 12 months about their own gambling, and to participants who knew someone close to them who gambles, with questions about consequences experienced due to someone else’s gambling. This approach provides a more holistic understanding of gambling-related consequences and addresses known limitations of the PGSI (opens in new tab), including its inability to capture the experiences of affected others.
Part of the analysis in this report focuses on adverse consequences from an individual’s own gambling. Participants were asked questions on adverse consequences in two separate sets: one relating to their own gambling and another relating to consequences from someone else’s gambling. Therefore, such findings reduce the risk of double counting.
Given it’s push-to-web methodology, research (opens in new tab) suggests that participants may feel more comfortable providing honest responses in self-completion surveys compared with interviewer-administered surveys, potentially reducing the influence of social desirability bias.
Limitations of this analysis
As the GSGB is a self-report survey, some participants may simply not know that someone close to them gambles. This could mean that data on participants affected by someone else’s gambling may be under-reported.
Additionally, we cannot identify the specific relationship between the affected person and the person who’s gambling is impacting them. We only know the participant knows someone close to them gambles. Furthermore, although we ask whether a person lives with someone who gambles, we cannot determine if it is this person's gambling that is impacting the participant.
Although this research has these limitations, a qualitative study later this year – mentioned later in this report – will aim to explore and address some of these areas in depth.
References
4 For own gambling, questions 7, 8, and 9 – indicated with * – were asked as part of the PGSI question set, and had the response options ‘almost always’, ‘most of the time’, ‘sometimes’, and ‘never’.
Affected others - Background Next section
Affected others - Findings
Last updated: 14 May 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.