Report
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Implications for the GSGB and future data collection
The findings from this research have implications across 3 areas: how the Gambling Commission collects and interprets data on affected others through the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB); how the Commission has strengthened its evidence base on gambling-related harm and vulnerability, which may lead to further work to inform future regulation; and what further research is needed to build on and extend what this study has found. Each is addressed in turn in this section of the report.
The qualitative findings in this report both contextualise and extend what the GSGB data tells us about affected others. They also highlight specific gaps in what the survey currently captures which, if addressed, would help to strengthen the Commission's ability to identify harms experienced by affected others.
The following recommendations are offered with an awareness of the practical constraints involved in developing and maintaining a large-scale annual survey. Survey length, respondent burden, and the risk of participant drop-out need to be taken into consideration, and the Commission will need to weigh up these factors when assessing the feasibility of any additions to the GSGB question set.
1. Further detail in the relationship type variable
The GSGB currently identifies whether a respondent knows someone close to them who gambles but cannot distinguish between granular relationship types. This research demonstrates that relationship type (whether someone is a partner, parent, adult child, sibling, friend, or colleague) shapes the nature, severity, and duration of harm in fundamental ways.
More granularity in the relationship type variable would enable targeted analysis and allow the Commission to track how harm profiles differ across this influential variable over time. In terms of implementation, this would be a relatively contained addition to the existing question set, though consideration would need to be given to how to handle respondents who are affected by more than one person’s gambling, potentially across different relationship types.
2. The addition of mental health and neurodiversity disclosure options
The GSGB currently measures well-being using the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. While this captures a useful snapshot, it does not enable analysis by pre-existing mental health conditions or neurodivergent characteristics, both of which are likely to shape how an affected other and the person gambling experience and respond to harm.
While neurodiversity did not emerge as a central theme in this research, it surfaced in a small number of accounts – including participants who felt the person gambling may have had undiagnosed ADHD, and one participant who described avoiding gambling herself due to her own ADHD and concerns about addictive tendencies. These observations are tentative, but they suggest neurodivergent characteristics may be a relevant factor worth exploring further.
Adding optional disclosure options for both mental health conditions and neurodivergent characteristics to the GSGB would allow the Commission to better understand which groups within the affected other population are at heightened risk. In terms of implementation, these would need to be optional rather than required fields given the sensitivity of the topic, and the resulting sub-groups may be small, limiting statistical analysis. Further, self-identification may be limited given that some people may not recognise neurodivergence in themselves.
3. The addition of specificity around emotional harms
The GSGB captures guilt, embarrassment, and shame as a single combined item. This research found that guilt and shame function differently. Where guilt tends to be inwardly directed, relating to the affected other’s own actions or inactions, shame is outwardly directed, relating to social perception and stigma. These are distinct experiences with different implications for how affected others (and people gambling) act (or do not). Separating them in the question set would also produce more precise data and better reflect the complexity of emotional harm as affected others describe it. Providing concise definitions of all emotional harms at question level would also aid participants in accurately self-identifying.
In terms of implementation, adding granularity here would increase survey length, and careful question design would be needed to ensure items are clearly distinguishable to respondents, including those who may not have previously reflected on notions of guilt and shame in their own experience.
4. Capturing whether affected others and the ‘person gambling’ gamble together
This research found that entangled gambling (where the affected other and person gambling currently gamble or have ever gambled together) creates the conditions for a specific and distinct form of harm, including guilt, complicity, and difficulty attributing consequences clearly. Currently, the GSGB does not capture whether an affected other and the person gambling have ever gambled together.
Adding a variable to capture this would enable the Commission to identify the size of this group and understand how their experiences and support needs differ from those of non-gambling affected others. This would require careful question design to distinguish between past and current shared gambling, and the resulting sub-group may be relatively small – though the GSGB’s large sample size should provide sufficient numbers for meaningful analysis.
5. Considerations for recontacting GSGB respondents identified as affected others
The GSGB identifies individuals who are affected by someone else’s gambling, and recontacting respondents for follow-up research presents a valuable opportunity to deepen understandings of their experiences. However, the findings from this study highlight several practical and ethical considerations that should inform how any recontact approach is designed.
First, timing and emotional readiness matter significantly. Affected others exist at very different points in their journey; some are in active crisis, others in chronic situations they have been in for years, and others in recovery. A recontact approach should screen sensitively for current circumstances before inviting participation and should not assume that willingness to complete a survey translates into readiness to engage in more in-depth discussions. The introductory call used in this study proved valuable in assessing participant readiness and building initial rapport before any substantive research conversations took place. A similar staged approach is recommended for any recontact methodology.
Second, many affected others do not recognise themselves as such or may not have identified their experiences as harmful at the time of completing the GSGB. Recontact materials should use plain, accessible language that reflects the breadth of affected other experiences, avoiding terminology that may feel alienating or create a barrier to engagement. The term affected other itself, for example, was not known to a significant proportion of this study’s participants prior to the research taking place, and some affected others talked of downplaying the harms they were experiencing, potentially increasing the likelihood of self-exclusion. While labels like affected other can help make sense of one’s experiences, and see themselves as justified in receipt of support, definitions or categories are best avoided during data collection. Gathering information on participant experiences with more neutral and factual language, mitigates individuals self-excluding where they might otherwise be inclined to do so, and more open engagement.
Third, safeguarding considerations are heightened in this population. The GSGB identifies affected others by consequence severity but cannot capture current circumstances; someone who reported severe consequences at the time of the survey may be in a more acute situation by the time of recontact, or vice versa. Any recontact approach should include a clear safeguarding protocol, with researchers prepared to signpost to support and to pause or redirect where a respondent appears to be in distress. Participants with very recent or acute experiences of severe harm (including exposure to violence, suicidality, or criminal proceedings) should not be recruited for in-depth follow-up without careful consideration and appropriate support structures in place. Recontacting participants is recommended to take place in the short to medium term, while their engagement with the Commission is still relatively recent and the experiences they described remain salient. The longer the gap between the initial survey completion and recontact, the greater the likelihood that circumstances will have changed, increasing both the safeguarding complexity and the risk of recall bias. Where longitudinal engagement is the goal, seeking participants’ permission to periodically recontact them at the point of initial survey completion would be the most effective approach.
Fourth, the value of lived experience involvement in shaping the recontact approach should not be underestimated. In this study, Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) members who identified as affected others played a central role in refining participant materials and ensuring the language and framing felt appropriate and respectful. The same principle should apply to any recontact methodology – those with lived experience of being an affected other are best place to a provide a level of assurance on how a proposed approach will land with the people it is trying to reach.
Finally, incentivisation should be considered carefully. Affected others, particularly those still in difficult circumstances, may feel a degree of obligation or pressure when contacted by a trusted body such as the Gambling Commission. It should be made unambiguously clear that participation is voluntary, that declining will have no consequences, and that any incentive offered is a token of appreciation rather than a condition of engagement.
Next sectionLinks to evidence gaps and priorities
Last updated: 25 June 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.