Report
Measuring the adverse consequences from gambling
Read how we have developed new questions about adverse consequence from gambling which are included in the GSGB survey.
Evaluating 'occasionally' responses
Quantitative analyses
Data collected from step 3 of the experimental phase of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) was used to examine differences in Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores and mental wellbeing across participants' responses to items about adverse consequences1. Participants who had gambled in the past 12 months and had provided valid responses to impact questions, and PGSI and mental wellbeing scales, were included in the analyses (PGSI: 2,222 participants; SWEMWBS: 2,210 participants). Due to low base sizes, 'very often' and 'fairly often' responses were combined for analysis.
To check the validity of the results, we calculated the probability value (p-value) which is a method of understanding how likely is it that the results are due to chance. We used a scale of 0 to 1 where a lower number suggested the results were unlikely to be due to chance.
Results showed that participants who reported experiencing each impact 'fairly often’ or ‘very often' had significantly higher PGSI scores, on average, compared with those who answered 'occasionally' or 'never'. Similarly, those who 'occasionally' experienced each impact had significantly higher PGSI scores than those who had 'never' experienced each impact (Figure 3) (p less than .01 in all comparisons).
Results showed that participants who reported experiencing each potential adverse consequence 'fairly often’ or ‘very often' had significantly higher PGSI scores, on average, compared with those who answered 'occasionally' or 'never'. Similarly, those who 'occasionally' experienced each potential adverse consequence had significantly higher PGSI scores than those who had 'never' experienced each consequence (Figure 3) (p-value less than .01 in all comparisons).
We also found that mental wellbeing scores (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS)) were significantly lower (indicating poorer mental wellbeing) amongst those who had experienced each adverse consequence 'occasionally' compared to those who had 'never' experienced each consequence (p-value less than .05 in all comparisons). For 4 of the 6 items ('reduced spend on every day items', 'use of savings', 'lie to family', 'absent from work'), mental wellbeing scores did not differ significantly between those who answered 'very or fairly often' and 'occasionally' (Figure 4). All analyses should be interpreted with caution due to low base sizes amongst those who reported each potential adverse consequence ‘very or fairly often’ and ‘occasionally’2.
Analyses were repeated to examine mental wellbeing scores amongst people who knew someone who gambles (1,660 participants). Participants who reported each potential adverse consequence ‘occasionally’ had lower SWEMWBS scores (indicating poorer mental wellbeing) relative to those who had ‘never’ experienced each potential adverse consequence. For 4 items (‘conflict’, ‘isolated’, ‘lie to family’, and ‘absent from work’), SWEMWBS scores did not differ significantly between those who had experienced these consequences ‘occasionally’ compared with those who had experienced each consequence ‘very or fairly often’ (Figure 5). All analyses should be interpreted with caution due to the low base sizes amongst those who reported each consequence ‘very or fairly often’ and ‘occasionally’3.
Figure 3. Mean PGSI score by response to questions about potential adverse consequences amongst people who had gambled in the past year
(Unweighted base = 2,222). All comparisons were significant with p-values less than .01. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
| Response | Never (mean) | Occasionally (mean) | Very or fairly often (mean) | Never (standard error of the mean) | Occasionally (standard error of the mean) | Very or fairly often (standard error of the mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spending on everyday items | 0.50 | 6.79 | 15.09 | 0.04 | 0.54 | 1.04 |
| Savings | 0.50 | 6.38 | 13.50 | 0.04 | 0.59 | 1.00 |
| Conflict or arguments | 0.61 | 7.05 | 14.89 | 0.04 | 0.85 | 0.90 |
| Isolated | 0.56 | 6.05 | 14.37 | 0.04 | 0.67 | 0.95 |
| Lie to family | 0.52 | 5.65 | 13.16 | 0.04 | 0.58 | 0.85 |
| Absent from work | 0.60 | 9.07 | 14.82 | 0.04 | 0.91 | 0.92 |
Figure 4. Mean mental wellbeing score (SWEMWBS) by response to potential adverse consequences questions amongst people who had gambled in the past year
(Unweighted base = 2,210). Lower scores indicate poorer mental wellbeing. Significant differences are denoted by different letters. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
| Question | Very or fairly often (mean) | Occasionally (mean) | Never (mean) | Very or fairly often (standard error) | Occasionally (standard error) | Never (standard error) | Statistical comparisons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spending on everyday items | 21.17 | 20.64 | 23.10 | 0.82 | 0.46 | 0.09 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'Fairly or very often'. |
| Savings | 20.98 | 20.84 | 23.09 | 0.83 | 0.47 | 0.09 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. |
| Conflict or arguments | 19.79 | 22.00 | 23.04 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.09 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. The mean SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'occasionally' were significantly higher than those who responded 'fairly or very often'. |
| Isolated | 19.23 | 21.38 | 23.10 | 0.46 | 0.68 | 0.09 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded "never" were significantly higher than those who responded "occasionally" or "fairly or very often". The mean SWEMWBS scores for people who responded “occasionally” were significantly higher than those who responded "fairly or very often." |
| Lie to family | 20.30 | 21.06 | 23.09 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.09 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. |
| Absent from work | 20.44 | 19.64 | 23.07 | 0.83 | 0.65 | 0.09 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. |
Figure 5. Mean mental wellbeing score (SWEMWBS) by response to potential adverse consequences questions amongst people who know someone who gambles
(Unweighted base = 1,660). Lower scores indicate poorer mental wellbeing. Significant differences are denoted by different letters. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
| Question | Very or fairly often (mean) | Occasionally (mean) | Never (mean) | Very or fairly often (standard error) | Occasionally (standard error) | Never (standard error) | Statistical comparisons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spending on everyday items | 19.32 | 21.21 | 22.86 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.10 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'fairly or very often' were significantly lower than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'never'. The mean scores for those who responded 'occasionally' were significantly lower than for those who responded 'never'. |
| Savings | 19.38 | 21.74 | 22.84 | 0.65 | 0.82 | 0.10 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'fairly or very often' were significantly lower than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'never'. SWEMWBS scores for those who responded 'occasionally' were significantly lower than for those who responded 'never'. |
| Conflict or arguments | 21.24 | 21.09 | 22.89 | 0.62 | 0.46 | 0.10 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. |
| Isolated | 20.60 | 19.96 | 22.88 | 0.77 | 0.60 | 0.10 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. |
| Lie to family | 21.13 | 20.94 | 22.87 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.10 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. |
| Absent from work | 21.14 | 19.56 | 22.83 | 0.73 | 0.92 | 0.10 | SWEMWBS scores for people who responded 'never' were significantly higher than for those who responded 'occasionally' or 'fairly or very often'. |
Qualitative analysis
To supplement the analysis conducted with Step 3 data and gain further insight into how participants had understood the response option 'occasionally', we conducted follow-up qualitative research in collaboration with National Centre for Social Research (NatCen). Participants (16 participants) who reported 'occasional' or multiple instances of gambling-related harm, and those who had experienced adverse consequences due to someone else’s gambling, were invited to attend follow-up interviews.
Participants described 'occasional' harms using a range of frequencies and impacts. Some participants perceived occasional harms to be less impactful than more frequent harms, while others said that even infrequent harms could lead to substantial negative impacts, such as serious financial hardship or strained relationships. The potential negative impacts of ‘occasional’ harms aligns with findings from our quantitative analyses, in which we found an association between ‘occasional’ adverse consequences and lower mental wellbeing. Overall, our findings suggest that 'occasional' adverse consequences from gambling may indicate some degree of gambling-related harm.
References
1 Analyses were conducted using univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) with PGSI/SWEMWBS as dependent variables and each question as independent variables. For each question, pairwise comparisons using Least Squared Differences (LSD) were conducted to identify significant differences in PGSI or SWEMWBS scores amongst those who had answered ‘never’, ‘occasionally’, and ‘fairly or very often’. LSD was selected for pairwise comparisons due to the small number of comparisons needed for each item, and to optimise power to detect significant differences between groups.
2 The number of participants who answered ‘very often’ or ‘fairly often’ to questions about potential adverse consequences from one’s own gambling varied by question but ranged from 35 participants (‘reduced spend on everyday items’) to 60 participants (‘lie to family’). The number of participants who answered ‘occasionally’ ranged from 45 participants (‘absent from work’) to 104 participants (‘reduced spend on everyday items’). These numbers represent the weighted base sizes that were used in the ANOVA.
3 The number of participants who answered ‘very often’ or ‘fairly often’ to questions about potential adverse consequences from someone else’s gambling varied by question but ranged from 22 participants (‘absent from work’) to 41 participants (‘conflict or arguments). The number of participants who answered ‘occasionally’ ranged from 30 participants (‘absent from work’) to 94 participants (‘conflict or arguments’). These numbers represent weighted base sizes that were used in the ANOVA.
Testing binary versus scaled response options (Experimental phase) Next section
Further validation of survey questions
Last updated: 25 July 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.