Report
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Strengths and limitations
Strengths
The qualitative design of the study provided a rich, detailed understanding of how affected others experience and navigate the consequences of someone else’s gambling. In-depth interviews allowed participants to describe their experiences in their own words; this enabled nuanced understandings containing emotional texture, complexity, and personal significance in a way that cannot be captured quantitatively or at a large scale.
Engagement with Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) across stages ensured the research was grounded in lived experience from design to analysis, and that participant materials were appropriate and sensitive. LEAP’s involvement also strengthened recruitment, particularly for participants with experience of severe adverse consequences who are less likely to be recruited through the standard channels.
The three-stage approach allowed researchers to build rapport with participants while giving them meaningful preparation time to reflect on their experiences ahead of sharing them. This supported more honest and reflective accounts, particularly on topics that some participants may not have previously discussed in depth. Using the same researcher throughout all stages created a sense of continuity and trust that was especially important given the sensitivity of the subject matter.
The consistency of accounts across a diverse sample gives confidence that the themes identified here reflect meaningful patterns in how affected others experience gambling-related harm. Similar experiences were described repeatedly across interviews, indicating that data saturation was reached within the sample.
Limitations
As with all qualitative research, the findings presented here are indicative rather than statistically representative of all affected others across Great Britain. They are best read alongside the GSGB data, which provides the quantitative picture.
The sample did not include participants currently experiencing very recent or acute severe harm due to safeguarding considerations. This means the research offers limited insight into the most acute phase of crisis.
No participants in the sample scored above 4 on the PGSI, meaning the research does not capture the experiences of affected others with more problematic gambling behaviours of their own. This is a gap identified for future research (see Implications and recommendations).
There is also potential for research reactivity; for some participants, reflecting on their experiences prompted greater awareness of gambling-related harm or surfaced emotions they had not previously processed. While researchers managed this carefully, it may have shaped how some participants described their experiences.
Further, as with all qualitative research based on self-reported accounts, the findings are also subject to potential biases. Participants may have chosen to emphasise certain (elements of their) experiences over others, or to present their situation in particular ways within a research setting – a form of social desirability bias that is difficult to eliminate entirely. Non-response bias is also worth noting; those who agreed to take part may differ in meaningful ways from affected others who did not, for example being more willing to reflect on or discuss their experiences. These limitations are inherent to the method and do not undermine the value of the findings but should be kept in mind when interpreting them.
The next section of the main report can be found on the Findings page.
Previous sectionSample
Last updated: 25 June 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.