The latest set of gambling-related news from the UK includes the publication of new research on why different gaming surveys assess varying participation and Problem Gambling Severity Index rates.
It was conducted by Professor Patrick Sturgis and examines why the self-completed Gambling Survey for Great Britain reports higher levels of gambling and PGSI risk than standard face-to-face surveys such as the Health Survey for England or the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey.
According to the UK Gambling Commission, which oversees land-based and online casino operations, the objective behind this latest research was to give a better look at the causal proof on how survey design features impact estimates of participation and Problem Gambling Severity Index levels.
The recent study reviewed whether the use of the word ‘gambling’ in the survey invitation or title affected who responded. It also assessed where being questioned by another person would subdue the self-reporting of activity and consequences. Lastly, it studies the effect of being presented with a longer and updated list of gambling.
Key Findings
In the survey, Professor Sturgis tried to answer several questions. One of them was “Does explicitly mentioning gambling in the survey invitation affect who responds?” It found that explicitly mentioning gambling in the survey invitation did not affect the overall response rate from participants.
However, it determined that mentioning gambling led to a 4% increase in reported gambling participation. Thus, hinting that individuals who are keen on gaming were more likely to cooperate.
Furthermore, the report discovered that the rate for individuals who had 1 or more on the PGSI scale was 1.8% higher than those in the gambling-invitation group. However, the study noted that the discrepancy did not pose actual statistical significance.
Does Having an Interviewer Make a Difference?
Another query from the research was “Does being asked questions by an interviewer affect participants’ answers and replies to PGSI questions?” It was discovered that an interviewer asking the questions via the phone had a major effect on the reported PGSI ratings.
The rate for those who had 1 or above on the PGSI was 4.4% higher in the online self-completion condition compared to telephone interviews. It means that nearly 50% of those have a score of 1+. It also implies that respondents under-report undesirable behaviour when an interview is present. This reflects on the general literature in the area.
Does a Longer List of Gambling Options Have an Effect?
The final question in the research was “Does being presented with a longer and updated list of gambling activities impact prevalence estimates?”
The report unveiled that updating the list of gambling options and activities, similar to what GSGB did to cover all new gambling products, had no major effect on reported gambling participation or the rate of consumers who score 1 or more on the PGSI.
Commission Pleased with the Results
Ben Haden, who is Director of Research and Policy at the UK Gambling Commission, said:
“We welcome the results of this report, which sheds important new light on the impact of different survey methodologies in relation to gambling. This research builds our confidence in the outputs of GSGB, helps to understand the differences between surveys published on gambling and will improve our guidance for users.”
He added that it is nearly impossible to definitively determine participation or consequences of gambling through one study alone. That’s why the gambling regulator will continue to improve GSGC and review different data while collaborating with other publishers of casino-related surveys to provide a rounded evidence to better explain their work.
Professor Sturgis, who worked on the study, commented that the experimental nature of this research meant the commission could come to strong causal conclusions about the factors that lead to wide variability in gambling estimates among different types of surveys.
“While no single study will enable us to determine the ’true’ values for key gambling estimates, these findings make an important contribution to our understanding of how different survey design features influence the results obtained.”, noted Sturgis.
Final Recommendations
Last but not least, the study also suggested that the gambling watchdog should refine its online guidance on explaining GSGB estimates of gambling and gambling harm. This would better mirror the likely causes of differences between them and those from previous health surveys.
In response to the recommendation, the Commission said it will listen to the guidance as part of its efforts to bolster research development.
Overhauling Financial Penalties
A few weeks ago, the Gambling Commission revealed its plans to reassess how it punishes iGaming sites for breaking the country’s gambling standards. The reforms arrive after a public consultation and will come into effect on October 10, 2025.
These changes will make the penalisation process more streamlined, and it will calculate the financial fines based on how much operators make and the degree of violation.
Once the new rules come into effect, the UKGC will rely on a seven-step process for determining the penalties. This would simplify the calculation of fines. Here are some of the steps:
- Five levels of seriousness to decide the degree of breach.
- Penalties are based on a percentage of the Gross Gambling Yield.
- For the worst offences, the maximum starting points are 15% of GGY. However, it could be even higher in some severe cases.
- Changes for factors that make things better or worse: deterrence, cost, and quick resolution.
The Commission explained that the new framework should make enforcement easier and get entities to comply sooner, which will lower the risk of consumer harm and improve regulatory results.
