According to the Gambling Commission, the annual Gambling Survey for Great Britain should not be compared to previous surveys.
Next Thursday, 25 July, the GC will publish their latest data to give insight into gambling and its harm in Great Britain. First wave published in February.
GSGB sets new baseline for research
In a lengthy guide on its website, however, the Commission stated that the statistics used in the new GSGB were “collected using a method different from previous official statistics”.
The Commission stated that the GSGB results are not comparable to those of previous surveys, and comparisons between them should not be made in order to evaluate trends over time. The new survey, they said, should be the “first of a brand new baseline”.
The GC stated: “All studies are susceptible to biases that may impact results. The GSGB is no different from the previous health surveys or gambling surveys.
There is a chance that the GSGB will overstate certain gambling behaviors, so estimates must be treated with caution.
“Unreliable data”?
Melanie Ellis of Northridge Law, who is a betting and gaming partner, criticised the guidance.
On LinkedIn, she said: “The Gambling Review White Paper promised to deliver’real change’. After the reforms are complete, we’ll need a way to measure whether the promised changes have been made.
How will we be able to tell if the reforms in the White Paper have brought about a’real’ change, when there is no way for us to know if gambling-related harm has decreased since their introduction?
In light of these guidelines, I urge the Commission reconsider whether or not it’s wise to publish data that are unreliable as official statistics.
New research methods
The GC published a paper on evidence gaps and priority areas in May 2023. It covered the period 2023-2026. The document outlined the Commission’s intent to conduct evidence-based studies on gambling harms and gateway products.
The GSGB uses a “push-to-web” method in which the users are first encouraged to complete a questionnaire online, before a printed version is made available. The telephone data from previous GC survey surveys is not comparable.
Three experimental phases were carried out with the National Centre for Social Research to make sure the research “was robust and suitable for official statistics”.
Prof. Patrick Sturgis, of the London School of Economics, also conducted an independent evaluation of GSGB. The study was described as “exemplary” in every respect.
Previous criticism
Critics have previously criticized the GC’s use of statistical data.
In an interview 2023 with iGB, David Brown, a veteran of the industry, expressed his concern about how the Commission represented affordability check data.
Regulus Partners, a gambling consulting firm, stated that the review by Sturgis did “little” to alleviate concerns about the GSGB using statistics.
