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. Young people and gambling: Qualitative research

Report

Young people and gambling: Qualitative research

Qualitative research conducted by 2CV, with 11 to 17 year olds, to build on and contextualise the findings from the annual Young People and Gambling survey.

Published
25 February 2025

Last updated
25 July 2024 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Contents

The importance of understanding gambling-related harms

The Gambling Commission has previously relied on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (Ferris & Wynne, 2001), and a screening tool adapted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV) as proxy measures of gambling-related harm (Fisher, 2000). The DSM-IV screening questionnaire consists of 9 items, and individuals who score 3 or more are thought to be experiencing problem gambling. The PGSI is a 9-item validated scale that measures gambling behaviours and negative experiences of gambling, and categorises individuals into 4 groups based on their scores:

  • PGSI score 0: representing a person who gambles, and could gamble heavily, but does not report experiencing any of the nine symptoms or adverse consequences asked about
  • PGSI score 1 to 2: representing low risk gambling by which a person is unlikely to have experienced any adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling
  • PGSI score 3 to 7: representing moderate risk gambling by which a person may have experienced adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling
  • PGSI score 8 or higher: representing problem gambling by which a person who will have experienced adverse consequences from their gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour; involvement in gambling can be at any level, but is likely to be heavy.

The PGSI and DSM-IV measure have been included within the health surveys of England, Scotland, and Wales. These surveys gathered data on gambling behaviour from approximately 4,000 adults per nation each year through interviewer-led surveys. The Commission also regularly tracked trends in the prevalence of people scoring 8 or more on the PGSI via its quarterly telephone survey, although this was conducted with a relatively small sample and used a short-form version of the PGSI (that is, the PGSI mini screen; Volberg & Williams, 2012 (opens in new tab) (PDF)), and was therefore not used for official statistics.

In recent years, rates of participation in face-to-face and interviewer-led surveys, such as the quarterly telephone survey and health surveys, have declined (Ipsos MORI 2012 (opens in new tab) (PDF), Sturgis, 2024 (opens in new tab)). This trend has prompted the need to develop new cost-effective methods to obtain reliable and representative data from the general population. We have therefore developed a new survey, the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), to gather data on gambling participation and its potential impacts. The GSGB uses a push-to-web methodology which eliminates the need for an interviewer to be present and helps to reduce the likelihood of socially desirable responses. The survey content has also been updated to include more detailed categories of online gambling activities, reflecting the modern gambling landscape.

In a recent review, (opens in new tab) (PDF), Professor Patrick Sturgis endorsed the GSGB methodology, and noted that the push-to-web approach yields high-quality estimates of gambling prevalence in Great Britain. The GSGB will serve as the primary source for estimating the prevalence of people scoring 8 or more on the PGSI, and will provide regular and consistent reporting of gambling participation across England, Scotland, and Wales. Unlike the health surveys that used both the PGSI and the DSM-IV screening tool, the GSGB will only use the PGSI to estimate experiences of problem gambling. This aligns with stakeholder suggestions that including both measures would be unnecessary given the development of additional questions relating to gambling-related harms. Importantly, due to changes in survey methodology, GSGB estimates of the prevalence of people who score 8 or more on the PGSI are not comparable with findings from previous gambling or health surveys. Nonetheless, the GSGB provides a new baseline against which future trends can be compared. For a discussion of the methodological differences that may account for variations in survey estimates of gambling participation and PGSI scores, see Sturgis (2024) (opens in new tab).

The GSGB has been developed and tested by the Commission in collaboration with National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and the University of Glasgow. In the first stage of development, we conducted a consultation with a range of stakeholders to gather their ideas on the design and content of the new survey. Following the consultation, a pilot phase was conducted to test the feasibility and effectiveness of using a push-to-web methodology to measure gambling participation, gambling harms, and the prevalence of people scoring 8 or more on the PGSI. The experimental phase involved further testing and refinement of the survey methodology, which was conducted across 3 stages. Experiments 1 and 2 focused on refining survey questions and data collection methods, while step 3 aimed to finalise the survey design and prepare for full implementation. The GSGB has now transitioned to a continuous data collection phase, with the goal of collecting data from 20,000 participants each year (further information about the development of the GSGB is available).

While the GSGB will continue to gather data on the prevalence of people scoring 8 or more on the PGSI, we recognise the need to develop a more comprehensive understanding of gambling-related harm. This has been emphasised by previous research which discusses the limitations of relying on the PGSI as a proxy measure of the negative impacts of gambling (Langham et al., 2016 (opens in new tab) ; Browne et al., 2017)(opens in new tab) (PDF). A recent Ipsos report commissioned by GambleAware (2023) (opens in new tab)(PDF) argued that by combining questions about gambling behaviours and their consequences into a single measure, the PGSI does not differentiate between gambling behaviours and the harms they cause. The authors also point out that the PGSI primarily focuses on the experiences of the individual gambler and does not adequately capture the wider impact of gambling on friends, family members, and the broader community. Addressing these limitations is crucial because the potential consequences of gambling can extend beyond the individual, leading to financial hardship, emotional distress, and relationship breakdown for those close to someone who gambles. Given that the PGSI was designed to measure symptoms of gambling disorders, it may not optimally assess the nature and severity of gambling-related harm experienced by individuals and others within their social circles.

Based on the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of gambling-related harms, we have developed a series of questions to be included in the GSGB. During the initial consultation phase of the GSGB development, all stakeholders unanimously recognised the importance of monitoring gambling-related harm. However, there was some disagreement about how gambling-related harm should be assessed. To address this, we set out the following objectives.

  1. To develop and validate a new suite of survey questions about the negative impacts of gambling on people who gamble, and those who know someone who gambles, using both quantitative and qualitative methods.
  2. To incorporate recommendations from a wide range of stakeholders in the development of the new questions.
  3. To conduct rigorous analysis to guide decisions about how gambling-related harms should be reported in official statistics publications.

By achieving these objectives, we aim to develop an optimal method for monitoring the negative impacts of gambling. This will provide valuable insight into how gambling can affect individuals and their friends and family and will help to identify risk factors that may be associated with gambling-related harm (such as gambling product, method of play, and so on).

Is this page useful?
Back to top