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. Measuring the adverse consequences from gambling

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.

Published
25 July 2024

Last updated
25 July 2024 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

  1. Contents
  2. Background
  3. Existing frameworks and measures for understanding gambling harms

Existing frameworks and measures for understanding gambling harms

Several frameworks have been developed to provide a theoretical understanding of gambling-related harms. For example, Langham et al.'s (2016) (opens in new tab) (PDF) framework categorises harms into domains such as financial, health, relationship and emotional and/or psychological impacts. The framework also emphasises the temporal nature of gambling harms, from immediate distress to long-term impacts on personal and social wellbeing (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Langham Conceptual Framework (Langham et al., 2016)

Figure 1: The Langham Conceptual Framework of Gambling Related Harms (Langham et al., 2016)

The framework categorises gambling-related harms into seven dimensions:

  1. Financial harm.
  2. Relationship disruption, conflict or breakdown.
  3. Emotional or psychological distress.
  4. Decrements to health.
  5. Cultural harm.
  6. Reduced performance at work or study.
  7. Criminal activity.

The framework also contains a Temporal Category, classifying harms into ‘General harms’, which are ongoing and pervasive, ‘Crisis harms’, which are acute and occur in specific situations, and ‘Legacy harms’, which are long-term consequences that persist over time.

Similarly, Wardle et al.'s (2018) (opens in new tab) (PDF) 'framework for action' (Figure 2) groups harms into impacts on resources, relationships and health, and emphasises how gambling can affect the lives of those close to them.

Figure 2. ‘Framework for Action’ (Wardle et al., 2018)

Figure 2. ‘Framework for Action’ (Wardle et al., 2018)

Wardle's Framework for Action (2018), which categorises gambling-related harms into three domains:

  1. Resources, including work and employment, money and debt, and crime.
  2. Health, including physical health, psychological distress, and mental health.
  3. Relationships, including partners, family and friends, community.

The diagram shows the interrelation between these domains, highlighting how harm in one area can affect and be affected by the others.

Wardle et al.’s (2018) framework for action was developed in collaboration with the Gambling Commission to guide the assessment and monitoring of gambling-related harms.

The framework provides a pragmatic approach by focusing on measurable aspects of gambling harm, and offers actionable insights for policy-making and interventions. While frameworks differ with regards to their organisation of harms, they share a similar understanding of the types of adverse consequences that are associated with gambling (Marionneau, Egerer, & Raisamo, 2023)(opens in new tab) (PDF).

Both the Langham et al. (2016) and Wardle et al. (2018) frameworks provide a theoretical basis for developing measures of gambling-related harm. In particular, a 72-item harm checklist was developed based on Langham's taxonomy and assesses gambling harms experienced within domains of finances, health, relationships, emotional wellbeing, work and study and cultural or social factors (Li et al., 2016) (opens in new tab).

The checklist provides a comprehensive measure of gambling-related harm, but the length of the scale limits its utility in large-scale population studies. The Short Gambling Harms Screen (SGHS) (Browne et al., 2018) (opens in new tab) provides a concise alternative, consisting of 10 harm items within the domains relationships, finances, and health. The SGHS has good internal reliability and validity, as demonstrated by a significant association with personal wellbeing. However, Price et al. (2021) (opens in new tab) (PDF) suggests that the SGHS may conflate potentially minor harms, or 'opportunity costs', with more severe consequences of gambling. Furthermore, while the SGHS provides a valid measure of gambling-related harms experienced by people who gamble, it does not assess the impact of gambling on people’s wider social networks. Another limitation of the SGHS is that the majority of items focus on financial harms, and so the scale may not provide a comprehensive assessment of other negative impacts of gambling (such as impacts on relationships and health). While a revised 18-item version of the scale (the SGHS-18) provides a more comprehensive measure of gambling harm, there is a need for more concise measures that can be easily incorporated within larger questionnaires and population surveys (Latvala, Browne, Rockloff, & Salonen, 2021) (opens in new tab).

While psychometric measures of gambling-related harm are useful for certain purposes, they provide limited insight into the complexities of harms and their broader impacts. We therefore did not aim to develop a new psychometric measure, but rather to develop a new set of survey questions that provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of gambling-related harms. Guided by Wardle et al.'s (2018) ‘framework for action’, we included survey questions that assess impacts on people’s resources, relationships, and health, as well as the wider consequences for people’s friends and family.

Previous section
The importance of understanding gambling-related harms
Is this page useful?
Back to top