Report
Qualitative research on the consequences of gambling
Qualitative research on the consequences of gambling: follow-up interviews with participants from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain
Contents
- Executive summary
- 1 - Introduction
- 2 - Methodology
- 3 - Overview of impacts of gambling on participants
- 4 - Participants’ journeys with adverse or severe consequences from gambling
- 5 - Interrelation of different adverse or severe consequences from gambling
- 6 - Preventing and reducing consequences
- 7 - Conclusion and recommendations
- Appendix A - Qualitative research on the consequences of gambling
2 - Methodology
2.1. Sampling and recruitment
In-depth interviews were conducted with 25 people who completed the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). Participants were selected based on their survey responses to questions about their gambling participation and their experience of severe and potentially adverse consequences of gambling in the past year – this was our ‘primary sampling criteria'. Selected participants had gambled in the last 12 months and experienced:
- at least 1 severe consequence from their own gambling (responding ‘yes’ to one or more of the 4 items)
- at least 2 potential adverse consequences from their own gambling (responding ‘very often’ or ‘fairly often’ to 2 or more of the 6 items) or
- had responded ‘occasionally’ to at least 3 of the potential adverse consequences from their own gambling, and who had a PGSI score of more than 3.
The initial sampling strategy aimed to recruit participants exclusively from Year 1 of the GSGB (fieldwork between July 2023 and February 2024). Following an accurate assessment of the sample, fewer cases than expected (169 in total) in Year 1 of the survey met the criteria for recruitment. Therefore, we opened the sampling up to include cases from the first wave of Year 2 data collection (69 in total; fieldwork between January 2024 and April 2024). However, the 2 samples are largely similar and completed the survey at similar times. In total, 17 interviews were conducted with participants from Year 1 of the survey, and 8 participants from Year 2, allowing data saturation to be reached.
Survey participants who met the sampling criteria and had agreed to be re-contacted were sent an email inviting them to take part in an interview. If participants expressed interest, a short screening call was arranged to provide further information about the research, answer any questions and find a suitable time for an interview.
To ensure that this research involved people with diverse experiences, we also monitored secondary sampling criteria, namely demographic factors (age, gender, and ethnicity), Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores, types of gambling activities participated in, and the types of consequences experienced. The following table (Table 1) shows the demographic characteristics of participants included in the research.
Table 1: Sample of participants
| Attribute | Number of participants |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| 18 to 34 | 6 |
| 35 to 54 | 17 |
| 55 or over | 2 | Gender |
| Male | 17 |
| Female | 8 | Ethnicity |
| White British and/or White Other | 16 |
| Black British and/or Black Other | 2 |
| Asian British and/or Asian Other | 6 |
| Other (including Mixed and/or Multiple) | 1 |
2.2. Data collection
Interviews were conducted in January, February and March 2025, lasted up to 60 minutes, and took place over the phone or online (MS Teams).
A topic guide was developed in collaboration with the Gambling Commission and their Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) (see Annex A). A topic guide is a tool used for interviews which sets out key discussion topics. This ensures a consistent approach across interviews while allowing the discussion to remain participant-led. The topic guide covered areas of interest for this research (for example, first experiences and journeys with gambling consequences, and relationships between gambling consequences).
During the interviews, researchers created a timeline as a visual tool to support the understanding of the participants’ journeys with gambling and, when possible, they were shared on screen with the participant to help elicit their memories and reflections. The timelines portrayed a chronological account of gambling consequences, relationships between gambling consequences, and external factors that may have affected gambling consequences.
2.3. Lived experience involvement
The Commission’s LEAP informed the development of materials and methods used for this research. The panel reviewed and provided feedback on the interview topic guide, the participant information sheet, and the aftercare leaflet. They also supported in piloting the timeline approach which was taken to explore participants’ journeys with gambling. There were 3 members of the panel who took part in pilot interviews with the research team and created timelines of their gambling journeys and subsequently fed back on their experience which allowed the research team to refine the approach.
2.4. Ethics
This study was approved by NatCen’s Research Ethics Committee. The topics of gambling and gambling harm are potentially sensitive, so NatCen sought to reduce any risk of psychological harm for those taking part. All participants received an information sheet which set out the purpose of the research and explained what would happen to participant data. Participants were reminded of their right to withdraw before and during the interview. Participants were also signposted to a list of organisations that they could contact if the subject matter of the research prompted any upset or distress.
2.5. Analysis approach
With participants’ permission, all interviews were recorded and transcribed to support analysis. Data was analysed and managed using the ‘framework’ approach2. In this approach, relevant information from each interview is written up into a framework, where each row represents one interview, and each column represents a research question or sub-question. This enabled the research team to assess the evidence relevant to each question. Analysis explored the full range of experiences and views, interrogating data to identify similarities and differences between participants and sought to explain patterns and themes.
This report does not provide numerical findings, since sampling for this qualitative research was purposive and not representative; therefore, it cannot support numerical analysis. Instead, the qualitative findings provide in-depth insights into the range of views and experiences of participants and verbatim quotes and timelines are used to illustrate these. These qualitative findings can support contextualising quantitative findings from the GSGB.
2.6. Strengths and limitations of the research
Working with the Commission’s LEAP allowed the research team to refine the research approach and tools, including identifying more sensitive elements of data collection, and helping to establish ways to reduce the risk of psychological harm from taking part. Piloting the timeline approach with members of the panel led to methodological developments regarding mirroring participant language, reducing the length of time that the timeline was shared on screen during the interview, and checking with the participant whether they were happy with how their experience was described. We recommend that future research on similar topics also seek guidance from those with lived experience.
Due to recruitment and time constraints, it was not possible to systematically adjust the recruitment strategy to reach a fully diverse sample. Therefore, our achieved sample had a higher proportion of men (17 participants) compared to women (8 participants) and a higher proportion of those who were aged 35 to 54 years compared to other age groups, particularly those aged over 55. Research shows that gambling harms vary between different age groups3 and the experiences of some groups (such as older adults) may therefore have been less well represented in this research.
Some participants preferred to have an interview over the phone rather than on MS Teams. For these participants, we were unable to share the timeline that was created during the interview on screen. This meant that some participants were unable to suggest adjustments to the timeline in real time, as they did not know what it looked like, which may have reduced the detail that was captured.
References
2 Nicola, K. G., Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, and Redwood S (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 117.
3Pattinson J, and Parke A (2016). Gambling behaviour and motivation in British older adult populations: A grounded theoretical framework. Journal of Gambling Issues, 34, 55-76.
Introduction to Qualitative research on the consequences of gambling Next section
3. Overview of impacts of gambling on participants to Qualitative research on the consequences of gambling
Last updated: 8 May 2025
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.