UKGC’s New Survey Sparks Debate on Gambling Harm Prevalence

The OSR’s review acknowledged the scale of the Commission’s efforts, praising the GSGB as the largest survey of its kind in the world. However, it also highlighted several areas in need of improvement, offering four key recommendations to enhance transparency and accuracy. The report comes amid growing scrutiny, as the GSGB appears to report significantly higher rates of gambling harm than other established sources such as the Health Survey for England.

One of the core concerns is whether the GSGB might be overstating the extent of gambling problems in the UK. The Commission has attributed the difference in reported figures to “social desirability bias” which is the idea that people are less honest about their gambling habits in face-to-face interviews. Yet, experts remain unconvinced.

Professor Patrick Sturgis, who led an independent review in 2024, warned of a “non-negligible risk” that the survey inflates levels of gambling harm and urged policymakers to treat its findings with caution.

The OSR also criticised the way limitations in the data are communicated to the public. While technical caveats were present in supporting documents, they were not clearly visible in the statistical bulletins used by most readers. The watchdog stated plainly that more effort was needed to highlight these issues within the main publications themselves.

Transparency was another sticking point. Some complainants argued that the survey’s approach could result in selection bias, as individuals more engaged with gambling might be more inclined to participate, skewing results. Others noted inconsistencies with industry data and said these had not been properly explained.

The Gambling Commission has already begun addressing some concerns. Updates to user guidance were made in February, and an experimental research project is underway to explore specific aspects of the GSGB’s methodology. A new statistics user group is also being formed, with dozens of stakeholders set to take part in ongoing dialogue.

Reaction from industry analysts has been mixed. Regulus Partners criticised the Commission’s initial response, accusing it of downplaying the OSR’s concerns and failing to acknowledge areas of weakness. They called for a more transparent and reflective approach in the Commission’s next update, which is expected by July.