Report
Understanding the adverse consequences of gambling
This report presents secondary analysis of Year 2 (2024) GSGB data
Discussion
Findings from this report help identify who may be most at risk of experiencing negative consequences from gambling, and provide insight into how different types of consequences may co-occur. After controlling for the number of gambling activities people played, we found that the risk of experiencing potential or severe adverse consequences was greater for males, younger individuals, those identifying as Mixed race, Asian, or Black, and people with lower financial income. While findings were largely consistent across all different types of consequences, there were a few notable exceptions. For example, the odds of experiencing potential adverse consequences to health did not differ between Black participants and White participants. Amongst severe consequences, experiencing violence due to gambling was not significantly predicted by sex.
Overall, our findings are consistent with previous research which has found a higher prevalence of ‘at risk’ gambling behaviours and harm amongst males, younger adults10, and those with lower financial income11. Furthermore, a recent scoping review found that negative consequences from gambling disproportionately impact minority ethnic groups, and may be exacerbated by stigma and barriers to obtaining support services12. Notably, much of the existing research on demographic differences in gambling behaviour has relied on screening tools, such as the PGSI, as proxy measures of harm. Our analysis extends previous findings by demonstrating similar sociodemographic disparities when examining negative consequences from gambling. In doing so, findings from this analysis provide support for our long-term strategy to move beyond single screening tools to a more comprehensive understanding of gambling harms.
An important caveat to these findings is that they do not account for differences in the type of gambling activities that people play. Previous research has found that certain activities, such as betting on non-sport events, online fruit and slots, or casino games are associated with a greater likelihood of scoring 8 or more on the PGSI (indicative of ‘problem gambling’). Notably, Year 2 (2024) GSGB data shows that engagement in these activities is most prevalent amongst men, those aged younger than 45, people of non-white ethnicity, and those in lower income quintiles. It is therefore possible that the observed associations between demographics and adverse consequences may be partly explained by differences in activity type and we plan to conduct further analysis to test this hypothesis.
A secondary aim of our analysis was to examine the co-occurrence and overlap of different types of consequences. We found that among those who reported at least one potential adverse consequence, over a quarter (29.5 percent) experienced consequences across all 3 domains (resources, relationships, and health), while half (49.9 percent) reported consequences in at least 2 domains. A similar pattern emerged for people who experienced severe consequences (n=195); nearly half reported 2 or more severe consequences (44.5 percent), and 8.1 percent reported all 4 severe consequences (crime, significant financial loss, relationship breakdown, and violence).
The observed pattern of overlap between different types of consequences is consistent with findings from our qualitative research, which highlighted that gambling-related harms often occur concurrently or sequentially. Findings are also consistent with recent research examining posts from a UK-based online gambling support forum. Using natural language processing13, it was found that people most frequently referred to emotional and psychological harms from gambling, and these often co-occurred with financial, relationship, and health-related harms. Our findings build on this evidence and provide further support to the idea that gambling-related harms often affect multiple aspects of a person’s life.
Findings from our secondary analysis also highlight the distinction between PGSI scores and reported adverse consequences. For example, 2 percent of individuals with a PGSI score of 0 reported potential adverse consequences to resources, indicating that some individuals may experience adverse consequences even at relatively low levels of gambling engagement. This supports the idea that the PGSI alone does not provide a comprehensive measure of harm. Using the new consequences questions alongside the PGSI enables us to capture both behavioural risk and the real-world impacts of gambling,
The inclusion of additional consequences questions in the GSGB also strengthens our ability to examine the longer-term impacts of gambling. This is identified within our evidence gaps and priorities as an important and under-researched area. While the PGSI primarily reflects current gambling behaviours, it is less suited to capturing harms that persist or emerge after gambling has stopped (known as ‘legacy harms’). In contrast, the new consequences questions capture a range of impacts that may be experienced over a longer duration. These questions therefore provide a basis for future research to explore the factors that contribute to legacy harms, identifying who is most at risk, and which types of harm are most likely to persist.
Findings from this report have important implications for harm reduction strategies. In particular, the association between lower household income and adverse consequences highlights the need to ensure customers are gambling within their means (for example, using financial vulnerability checks and tailored deposit limits). Our findings also indicate that younger individuals and people from minority ethnic backgrounds may be at particular risk of encountering gambling harm. It is therefore important that harm-reduction strategies and safer gambling messages are inclusive, culturally sensitive, and designed to engage a diverse range of consumers.
Our findings directly inform Theme 3 of our evidence gaps and priorities, which focuses on understanding gambling-related harm. By assessing a range of negative impacts, our findings help strengthen the evidence base and provide valuable insight into how gambling harms are experienced, and who is most at risk. Including consequences questions alongside the PGSI allows us to capture both behavioural risk and the tangible impacts of gambling on people’s lives. This broader understanding of harm is essential for ensuring that regulatory decisions are guided by robust and comprehensive data.
References
10 Allami, Y., Hodgins, D. C., Young, M., Brunelle, N., Currie, S., Dufour, M., Flores-Pajot, M. C., & Nadeau, L. (2021). A meta-analysis of problem gambling risk factors in the general adult population. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 116(11), 2968–2977.
11 Raybould, J. N., Larkin, M., & Tunney, R. J. (2021). Is there a health inequality in gambling related harms? A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 305.
12 Wheaton, J., Collard, S., and Nairn, A. (2024). Experience, risk, harm: What social and spatial inequalities exacerbate gambling related harms? Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research, University of Bristol.
13 van Baal, S. T., Bogdanski, P., Daryanani, A., Walasek, L., & Newall, P. (2025). The lived experience of gambling-related harm in natural language. Psychology of addictive behaviors: journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 39(4), 397–409.
Understanding the adverse consequences of gambling - Overlap between potential adverse consequences
Last updated: 2 October 2025
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.