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.
Executive summary
To build our understanding of the nature and prevalence of gambling-related harm within the population, we developed a set of survey questions that focus on some of the adverse consequences people might experience from gambling (Gambling Commission, 2024a). The survey questions distinguish between severe consequences, which are clearly and unequivocally harmful (for example, relationship breakdown or violence), and potential adverse consequences, which vary in severity and could have more cumulative effects on people's lives (for example, reducing spend on everyday items). The intention was to start to broaden our understanding rather than simply relying on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI, Ferris & Wynne, 2001 (opens in new tab)) as the only indicator.
In the 2025 Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), we report the percentage of people who endorse 'one or more' potential adverse consequences from gambling. This summary metric allows us to easily show trends in potential adverse consequences over time.
The primary aim for this report was to assess whether the prevalence of people reporting ‘one or more’ potential adverse consequences can be used as a meaningful topline indicator of gambling-related harm in the population.
To achieve this, we examined whether participants who report ‘one or more’ potential adverse consequences have poorer outcomes on other measures of health and wellbeing, compared with those who do not report adverse consequences from gambling. The purpose of this comparison was not to establish a causal link between potential adverse consequences and wellbeing, but to test whether the 2 are associated: If the summary metric captures meaningful experiences of harm, then people who report one or more potential adverse consequences would be expected to have poorer wellbeing than those who do not. We also explored the extent to which these groups differ on a range of demographic characteristics and gambling behaviours.
Key findings
Compared with those who reported no adverse consequences from gambling, participants who reported ‘one or more’ potential adverse consequences:
- showed poorer mental wellbeing and self-rated general health
- were twice as likely to report suicidal ideation
- were more likely to be younger, male, from ethnic minority backgrounds, to have lower household income, and no educational qualifications
- took part in a wider range of gambling activities
- scored higher on the PGSI
- were more likely to have played each gambling activity in the past 4 weeks, except for lottery draws.
The association between 'one or more' potential adverse consequences and poorer health and wellbeing remained significant after controlling for demographic differences.
These findings suggest that monitoring the prevalence of people experiencing ‘one or more’ potential adverse consequences will provide a useful further perspective and insight into the impact of gambling across the population. We therefore plan to report this metric in future GSGB publications, alongside other measures of harm and PGSI scores.
Previous sectionContents page Next section
Introduction - 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.