Evaluation frameworks for gambling harm reduction

A rapid evidence review of approaches for assessing interventions in the UK
Gambling machine being used by an elderly person in closeup

Evaluation frameworks for gambling harm reduction

A rapid evidence review of approaches for assessing interventions in the UK
Title: Evaluation Frameworks for Gambling Harm Reduction: A Rapid Evidence Review of Approaches for Assessing Interventions in the UK
Funding amount: £50,856.41
Location: UK
Dates: January 2026 – June 2026
Project partners: National Centre for Social Research
University of Plymouth PI/Co-I: Dr Ryan Statton (PI), Dr James Close (Co-I)
 

Overview

This six-month rapid evidence review systematically examined how outcomes are measured and assessed in gambling harm reduction interventions, with the goal of developing a modular outcome set (MOS) for standardised evaluation across different intervention types and contexts.

Objectives 

  • MOS: A flexible, evidence-based framework of core outcome domains that can be adapted across different intervention types and contexts.
  • Measurement gap analysis: clear identification of under-measured domains and priorities for outcome development.
  • Implementation guidance: practical recommendations for selecting appropriate outcome measures.

We know that there are a wide range of interventions designed to reduce, prevent, and protect from gambling-related harms and that these are being measured in a variety of ways.

As we move to a new commissioning system for research, treatment and prevention in the gambling harms sphere, it is really important that we have a robust understanding of what harm reduction looks like and how to identify where it is being done successfully.

Ryan StattonDr Ryan Statton
Research Fellow in Psychology

Context of the issue

Current outcome measurement in gambling harm reduction is inconsistent and fragmented. While we know that interventions like cognitive behavioural therapy typically use measures such as the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), there's no comprehensive understanding of what outcomes are being measured across the full spectrum of harm reduction approaches, or how well these align with holistic recovery concepts. This limits our ability to compare interventions and understand what constitutes meaningful recovery.

How the project addresses the issue

This evidence review was designed to generate insight into the wide array of treatment outcomes currently being employed as the gambling harms landscape evolves. The review provided a modular outcomes set that will furnish treatment providers, commissioners, and researchers with a clear options and recommendations for robust measures of successful interventions to reduce, prevent, and protect from gambling related harms.

Outcomes

We initially identified over 2,000 potentially relevant studies and, after several rounds of screening, narrowed these down to 39. Across these 39 studies, 75 different outcome measures were used to assess how well gambling harm reduction interventions worked. The most common was a well-established but often-criticised measure (the PGSI) that treats gambling harm mainly as an individual disorder. We also found that more holistic interventions tended to measure a broader range of outcomes. Importantly, there is a trade-off between standard measures that make it easier to compare interventions, while tailored measures better capture what a specific intervention is trying to achieve. 
The outcome measures we identified, and the conclusions we drew, provide a starting point for a modular outcome set (MOS) for gambling harm. Similar approaches are used elsewhere in health research, including drug and alcohol research. A MOS gives researchers a shared core of measures, so the effectiveness of different interventions can be compared directly, alongside optional modules that capture outcomes specific to each intervention.

Centre for the Psychology of Health and Wellbeing

The Centre for the Psychology of Health and Wellbeing (CPHW) at the University of Plymouth brings together researchers in clinical, cognitive, social, and environmental psychology to understand and improve health in real-world contexts.
The CPHW's interdisciplinary research addresses health and wellbeing across the lifespan, and integrates theoretical models and methods from neuroscience, cognition and applied social and health psychology.
Blue rose petal with dew for the CPHW