How gambling harms others: The influence of relationship-type and closeness on harm, health, and wellbeing

Background and aims

Concerned significant others (CSOs) can experience gambling-related harm, impacting their health and wellbeing. However, this harm varies depending on the type and closeness of the relationship with the person who gambles. We sought to determine the type and closeness of relationships that are more likely to experience harm from another person's gambling, and examine which aspects of health and wellbeing are related to this harm.

Methods

We examined survey data from 1,131 Australian adults who identified as being close to someone experiencing a gambling problem. The survey included information on relationship closeness, gambling-related harm (GHS-20-AO), and a broad range of health and wellbeing measures; including the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI), the 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12), and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form (PANAS-SF).

Results

CSOs in relationships where finances and responsibilities are shared were more likely to be harmed by another person's gambling problem, particularly partners (current and ex) and family members. This harm was most strongly associated with high levels of distress and negative emotions, impacting the CSO's ability to function properly at work or perform other responsibilities.

Discussion and Conclusions

Support and treatment services for CSOs should consider addressing the psychological distress and negative emotions commonly experienced by CSOs.

The effect of gambling problems on the subjective wellbeing of gamblers' family and friends: Evidence from large-scale population research in Australia and Canada

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Excessive time and money spent on gambling can result in harms, not only to people experiencing a gambling problem but also to their close family and friends ("concerned significant others"; CSOs). The current study aimed to explore whether, and to what extent, CSOs experience decrements to their wellbeing due to another person's gambling.

METHODS

We analysed data from The Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA; N = 19,064) and the Canadian Quinte Longitudinal Study (QLS; N = 3,904). Participants either self-identified as CSOs (QLS) or were identified by living in a household with a person classified in the problem gambling category by the PGSI (HILDA). Subjective well-being was measured using the Personal Wellbeing Index and single-item questions on happiness and satisfaction with life.

RESULTS

CSOs reported lower subjective wellbeing than non-CSOs across both countries and on all three wellbeing measures. CSO status remained a significant predictor of lower wellbeing after controlling for demographic and socio-economic factors, and own-gambling problems. There were no significant differences across various relationships to the gambler, by gender, or between household and non-household CSOs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Gambling-related harms experienced by CSOs was reliably associated with a decrease in wellbeing. This decrement to CSO's wellbeing was not as strong as that experienced by the person with the first-order gambling problem. Nevertheless, wellbeing decrements to CSOs are not limited to those living with a person with gambling problems in the household and thus affect many people.

Opportunity Costs or Not? Validating the Short Gambling Harm Screen against a Set of "Unimpeachable" Negative Impacts

Assessing the harmful consequences of gambling is an area of active investigation. One measure intended to capture gambling-related harm is the 10-item short gambling harm screen (SGHS). Although good psychometric properties have been reported, it has been suggested that the screen's less severe probes may not represent genuinely harmful consequences, but rather may reflect rational opportunity costs. Consequently, it has been argued that the screen may lead to overestimation of the extent of gambling-related harm in the population. The current study sought to examine the psychometric performance of three less severe suspect items in the SGHS. Associations between each of these items and a specially constructed scale of relatively severe "unimpeachable" gambling harms were calculated from archival data from 5551 Australian and New Zealand gamblers. All three suspect items, both individually and upon aggregation, predicted greater endorsement of "unimpeachable" harms, and indicated the presence of gambling problems. Moreover, the SGHS as a whole is highly correlated with "unimpeachable" gambling harms. Including suspect items in the SGHS was found to improve predictions of low- and moderate-risk gambling status, but slightly decreased predictions of severe gambling problems. The results are inconsistent with the notion that SGHS harm probes capture either inconsequential consequences or opportunity costs. They confirm prior findings that harm symptomatology is unidimensional, and that the report of multiple more prevalent, but less severe, harms serves as an effective indicator of the spectrum of experienced harm.

The prevention paradox applies to some but not all gambling harms: Results from a Finnish population-representative survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Prevention Paradox (PP) suggests that a large proportion of aggregate harm from gambling occurs to people who do not have a gambling disorder. However, it has not yet been tested using a population-representative sample. We aimed to test whether the PP applies to gambling in Finland. The prevalence rates of diverse harmful consequences from gambling were surveyed amongst a population-representative sample of past-year gamblers.

METHODS

The study used first wave data (N = 7,186) of Finnish Gambling Harms survey, collected via online and postal surveys in 2017. A subset of 3,795 adults (≥18 years), who had gambled at least monthly in 2016, were selected for analysis.

MEASUREMENTS

Gambling-related harms were evaluated with the 72-item Harms Checklist. Problem and Pathological Gambling Measure (PPGM) measured respondents' probable disordered gambling from the subset of items for impaired control (4 questions) and other issues (3 questions).

FINDINGS

Consistent with previous findings, the majority of harms were reported by those in the less severe PPGM categories (i.e. scoring <5). However, considering each domain separately, this was true only for financial, emotional/psychological, and work/study harms. The PP was not supported for health, relationship, or social deviance harms.

CONCLUSIONS

The population prevalence of the most serious harms (e.g. unsafe living conditions) is concentrated among those with severe impaired control issues. However, even excluding the ∼15% of harms occurring to occasional gamblers, most financial, emotional and work/study impacts occur to those with lower levels of control issues. Efforts at harm reduction should focus on the entire spectrum of issues that people experience from their gambling.

The 'Merry-Go-Round' of Habitual Relapse: A Qualitative Study of Relapse in Electronic Gaming Machine Problem Gambling

Background: Our understanding of gambling relapse is limited despite the damaging consequences affecting many aspects of the gambler’s life. Paradoxically, regardless of these negative consequences problem gamblers (PGs) continue to relapse, seemingly unable to stop this cycle of harm. This paper addresses the phenomenon of repeated gambling relapse shedding some insights into why gamblers continue to relapse. Methods: The study comprised of (n = 54) participants purposefully selected who participated in either 1 of 5 focus groups (n = 35) or in-depth interviews (n = 19). The new knowledge obtained was from PGs, significant others, and workers with direct experience of gambling relapse. Interview recordings were analysed using thematic, textual analysis. Results: The avoidance of negative emotions from the consequences of the destructive behaviour associated with repeated relapse leads to a hopeless “merry-go-round”. Once on this “merry go round”, relapse becomes a habitual way of life where behaviour change and learning from the devastation of a gambling relapse is challenging. Exiting this cycle means PGs must face the consequences of their gambling which for many is overwhelming, and relapse is a way to avoid despair. Conclusions: These findings provide insights into relapse which has implications for gamblers seeking treatment, assessment and treatment “drop-outs”.