Statistics Regulator Flags Major Issues in Gambling Survey
The UK’s Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has delivered a critical assessment of the Gambling Commission’s flagship survey on gambling habits and harms, raising concerns about reliability, bias, and transparency. The review follows growing unease from stakeholders who claim the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) may be inflating problem gambling rates and misleading policymakers.
The OSR’s compliance review, requested by the Gambling Commission itself, outlined nine specific recommendations aimed at bolstering the credibility and clarity of the annual survey. These include calls for stronger bias disclosure, external data comparisons, and a more user-focused approach to communication.
Key Recommendations from the OSR
The regulator’s review urges the Commission to:
- Develop a detailed plan for acting on prior recommendations by Professor Patrick Sturgis, who had previously warned the GSGB might overstate gambling harm.
- Tighten validation and quality assurance methods.
- Clearly communicate any limitations or biases within the survey, especially in user-facing materials.
- Compare GSGB findings against other trusted sources like the Health Survey for England and the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey.
- Launch a formal user engagement strategy and respond more openly to feedback.
- Expand partnerships with other official statistics bodies and broaden its stakeholder network.
- Publish a comprehensive communication plan.
- Rethink how GSGB data is presented to better serve different user groups.
Critics Warn of Inflated Harm Estimates
At the heart of the controversy is the GSGB’s significantly higher rates of gambling participation and harm compared to other official surveys. While the Commission attributes this to “social desirability bias” — the idea that people underreport gambling in face-to-face interviews — critics say that explanation is unproven.
Professor Sturgis, in his 2024 independent review, warned of a “non-negligible risk” that the survey was overstating gambling harm. He advised policymakers to treat the results cautiously until the methodology is more robustly tested.
The OSR echoed this view, noting that while warnings about potential overstatements were included in technical documents, they were not made clear in the main reports read by the public and policymakers.
Transparency and Trust Under Fire
The OSR also took issue with how the Commission handled transparency. Complaints pointed to a lack of openness about potential biases, especially the likelihood that gamblers are more inclined to respond to gambling-specific surveys, possibly skewing results.
Further criticism focused on the disconnect between GSGB findings and other industry data, which some felt had not been adequately addressed or explained.
One especially concerning detail: the Commission advises against using GSGB figures to estimate nationwide problem gambling prevalence — yet this warning isn’t clearly stated in main publications.
Commission’s Response Branded Dismissive
While the Commission has already begun rolling out improvements — including updated guidance and a pilot study on survey methods — its initial response to the OSR’s review was seen by some as overly positive.
Regulus Partners, long-time critics of the GSGB, accused the Commission of glossing over key concerns. “Criticised by the OSR for downplaying concerns about the GSGB, the Commission downplays the OSR’s own reservations,” they said.
They argue that the Commission’s reluctance to acknowledge shortcomings risks undermining trust and learning opportunities. “Trust depends on openness,” their statement concluded.
What’s Next?
The Commission has pledged a more detailed response by July and is working to establish a GSGB Statistics User Group, with about 70 stakeholders already lined up to take part.
The next annual GSGB report is slated for release on 2 October 2025. Whether the Commission’s upcoming actions will address the OSR’s concerns — and rebuild confidence in its data — remains to be seen.
