Report
Sturgis review recommendation 3 update
Impact of new gambling activities list on the Gambling Survey for Great Britain participation and consequences estimates
Discussion
In response to Professor Sturgis’ independent review of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), we conducted an experiment to assess the impact of changes in gambling activity lists on estimates of gambling participation and the prevalence of people scoring 8 or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that the GSGB activity list identified a significantly higher proportion of people who gambled online compared to the Health Survey list. There was also a slightly higher percentage of participants scoring 8 or more on the PGSI in the GSGB condition, however this difference was not statistically significant due to low sample sizes. When combining PGSI risk categories of 3 to 7 and 8 or more, we found that the GSGB condition yielded a significantly greater proportion of people scoring within higher risk PGSI categories.
Our findings suggest that the list of activities provided in the GSGB more effectively identifies people who gamble online, compared with the list of activities used in the health surveys of England, Scotland and Wales. This enhanced ability to capture people who gamble online may contribute to the higher prevalence of people scoring 8 or more on the PGSI in the GSGB relative to previous health surveys. Specifically, by including a wider range of online gambling activities, the GSGB likely captures more people displaying ‘at-risk’ patterns of gambling who may have been missed by previous gambling surveys. This improved identification of people who gamble online is crucial for developing a comprehensive understanding of gambling behaviours, particularly given the recent growth of online gambling platforms.
As with all research, this experiment has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. Firstly, the sample sizes for some subgroups were relatively small, particularly for those scoring 8 or more on the PGSI. Generally, cell counts below 30 are considered insufficient for robust statistical analysis, and so we were unable to test for significant differences between these groups. We addressed this issue by combining PGSI risk categories, but further research using larger samples is needed to understand how differences in activity lists between the GSGB and health surveys affect the prevalence of people scoring 8 or more on the PGSI. Secondly, the online panel service used to recruit participants may have introduced a bias in the sample. Participants recruited through online channels may be more likely to engage in online gambling, and so the generalisability of our findings to the general population may be limited.
We will continue to investigate possible explanations for the differences in PGSI estimates provided by the GSGB and previous health surveys, and have outlined how we plan to improve the survey and implement Professor Sturgis’s recommendations. Given the high priority of these recommendations, we have issued an Invitation to Tender (ITT) to invite external organisations to undertake 3 experimental recommendations on our behalf, including replicating this experiment with larger samples. This is important to maintain the independence of the experiments and to progress in a timely manner.
Previous sectionResults Next section
Appendix - Activity lists
Last updated: 9 October 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.