Report
Measuring gambling-related harm: Validating a summary metric of potential adverse consequences
Examining whether reporting one or more potential adverse consequences from gambling provides a valid population-level indicator of gambling-related harm.
Discussion
The aim of this report was to test whether the prevalence of ‘one or more’ potential adverse consequences provides a valid top-level indicator of gambling-related harm. We examined whether participants who report one or more potential adverse consequences have poorer outcomes on measures of health and wellbeing, compared with those who do not report adverse consequences. We also compared these groups on a range of demographic characteristics and gambling behaviours.
Participants who reported one or more potential adverse consequences from gambling had poorer mental wellbeing and self-rated health, and were nearly twice as likely to report suicidal ideation or attempts. They were also more likely to be younger, male, from ethnic minority backgrounds, living in lower-income households, and without an educational qualification. Importantly, associations between one or more potential adverse consequences and poorer health and wellbeing remained significant after controlling for demographic characteristics. These findings suggest that monitoring the prevalence of people reporting ‘one or more’ potential adverse consequences offers a useful population-level indicator of gambling-related harm.
Our findings showed that participants who reported one or more potential adverse consequences played a wider range of gambling activities compared with those who did not report adverse consequences. They also scored higher on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), and were more likely to have played each type of gambling activity over the past 4 weeks, except for lottery draws. The largest differences were observed for casino games, fruit and slots, and event betting. This is consistent with our previous research, which showed that participation in these activities was most strongly associated with increased gambling risk (assessed using the PGSI) and both potential and severe adverse consequences (Gambling Commission, 2025b; the Commission, 2026).
The link between potential adverse consequences from gambling and suicidal ideation reflects findings across the wider evidence base. For example, a recent meta-analysis found that people with gambling disorder had more than double the odds of suicidal ideation and nearly triple the odds of suicide attempts, compared with those without gambling disorder (Kristensen and others, 2024 (opens in new tab)). However, evidence on gambling-related suicide in Great Britain remains limited. Strengthening this evidence base is therefore a key priority for the Commission, and our evidence roadmaps emphasise the need for more robust data on deaths by suicide related to gambling (the Commission, 2025a). Improving the quality and availability of this evidence will be important for informing effective regulatory approaches.
Limitations
It is important to note that the prevalence of people with one or more potential adverse consequences provides a summary of the overall prevalence of adverse consequences and does not capture their frequency or severity. While our findings indicate that the metric adequately reflects experiences of harm, we will continue to report endorsement of individual items alongside this summary metric. It should also be noted that, because the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) is a cross-sectional survey, these findings cannot establish causality; poorer health and wellbeing may result from adverse consequences of gambling, contribute to them, or reflect shared underlying factors.
Previous sectionResults - Measuring gambling-related harm: Validating a summary metric of potential adverse consequences Next section
Conclusion - Measuring gambling-related harm: Validating a summary metric of potential adverse consequences
Last updated: 16 July 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.