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
  1. Home
  2. About us
  3. Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research

Report

Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research

Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research

Published
25 June 2026

Last updated
25 June 2026 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

  1. Contents
  2. Approach and methods
  3. Sample

Sample

25 affected others across England, Scotland, and Wales took part in the research. The sample was designed to reflect the profile of affected others identified in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) as closely as possible, while also capturing a range of relationship types and consequences in severity.

Participants were recruited through the Gambling Commission’s Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) network and Humankind’s specialist recruitment networks.

All participants were screened in advance to ensure they met the eligibility criteria, and that participation was appropriate given their current circumstances1.

The sample included:

  • severity of adverse consequences: 7 participants with experience of severe adverse consequences (experienced at least 12 months prior to fieldwork); 18 with experience of potential adverse consequences, current or mainly current
  • gender: the sample skewed female, consistent with the GSGB profile of affected others; 17 of the participants were women, and 8 were men
  • gambler status: 11 participants who gamble themselves; 14 non-gamblers. Among those who gamble, Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores ranged from 0 to 4. No participants scored above 42.
  • geography: 16 in England; 4 in Scotland; 5 in Wales
  • relationship type: a range of relationship types including partners, parents and caretakers, adult children, siblings, friends, and one business relationship
  • other criteria: a spread of ages from 18 upwards (approximately 25 percent aged 25 to 34); a range of socioeconomic backgrounds; a mix of ethnicities; and participants from urban, suburban, and rural areas.

The multi-stage design and ongoing researcher presence meant that the team was well-placed to respond when participants found conversations difficult. Several interviews required extension or adaptation where strong emotions resurfaced during the conversation; in these cases, researchers paused, adjusted the pace, or redirected as appropriate. One participant withdrew from the research before the interview took place, which is revealing of how challenging it can be for people to revisit these experiences.

References

1 2 participants had professional or voluntary roles in gambling support services, in addition to their own lived experience as affected others.

2 This was a deliberate sampling decision; affected others with higher PGSI scores were excluded due to the additional safeguarding complexity involved in recruiting participants whose own gambling behaviour may be problematic alongside their experience of someone else’s. This gap is acknowledged as a limitation of the research and is identified as a priority area for future study.

Previous section
Ethics and safeguarding Next section
Strengths and limitations
Is this page useful?
Back to top