Gambling disorder is associated with substantially elevated rates of suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and suicide deaths. The relationship deserves clinical attention whenever someone presents with gambling-related financial, emotional, family, or occupational harm, including when the person has never received a formal gambling disorder diagnosis. The most defensible interpretation is that gambling-related harm can contribute to suicidal distress through interacting psychological and social processes, while depression, substance use disorders, previous suicidal behavior, and other circumstances also influence risk. A diagnosis or screening score cannot determine whether a particular person will attempt suicide. Safety depends on asking about current thoughts and intent, responding to immediate needs, and connecting the person with continuing mental health and gambling-specific care. NICE NG248; Kristensen et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2026.
If someone is in immediate danger of suicide, has taken action to hurt themselves, or cannot stay safe, contact local emergency services or go to an emergency department now. In the United States, call or text 988 or use the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline for free, confidential crisis support at any hour. Outside the United States, contact local emergency services or use Find A Helpline to locate country-specific support. A person facing immediate danger should not be left to manage the crisis alone. This information complements professional assessment and emergency care. NICE NG225; 988 Lifeline.
What Gambling Disorder and Gambling-Related Suicidality Mean
Gambling disorder is a clinically recognized condition involving persistent or recurrent gambling behavior associated with impaired control, increasing priority given to gambling, continuation despite serious consequences, and clinically important distress or impairment. The World Health Organization includes it among disorders due to addictive behaviors in ICD-11. The American Psychiatric Association includes gambling disorder in its classification of addictive disorders. A person who experiences gambling harm may have financial or relationship problems before meeting the diagnostic threshold; a screening instrument may suggest a need for assessment without establishing a diagnosis. These distinctions are important because a clinician should investigate suicidal distress wherever gambling harms arise, regardless of formal diagnostic status. WHO, Gambling; NICE NG248.
Suicidality covers related but distinct outcomes: suicidal ideation, suicidal intent, suicide plans, suicide attempts, and death by suicide. Thoughts about death and thoughts about acting on suicide are clinically different experiences. Past self-harm may or may not have involved suicidal intent, and assessment must explore the individual's circumstances rather than assuming intent from the injury alone. Studies measuring lifetime ideation cannot be compared directly with studies recording attempts during a single year or deaths from national registries. Clear terminology protects both scientific inference and clinical decision-making. NICE NG225; Kristensen et al., 2024.
A gambling disorder diagnosis identifies a significant pattern of behavioral difficulty, not a prediction of suicide. Similarly, a person with gambling debt but no diagnosis may be in an acute crisis. The clinically relevant questions concern what has changed recently, how the person is coping, whether suicidal thoughts are present, and what support can be mobilized. NICE explicitly advises professionals to ask people experiencing gambling-related harms about suicidal ideation and intent, including where other conventional risk markers are absent. NICE NG248.
What the Evidence Shows
Evidence from meta-analyses
A large meta-analytic literature review published in Psychological Bulletin in 2024 included 107 studies involving approximately 4.69 million participants. Among people classified as having gambling problems, the pooled lifetime prevalence of suicidal ideation was 31.6%, and the pooled lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts was 13.2%. Compared with people without gambling problems, the odds ratios were 2.17 for lifetime suicidal ideation and 2.81 for lifetime attempts. These estimates describe groups in the included studies, not the probability that a particular reader will develop suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide. They also reflect different sampling frames, definitions of gambling problems, and clinical contexts. Kristensen et al., 2024.
The distinction between prevalence and association is essential. A pooled prevalence summarizes how often an outcome was reported across selected study populations; an odds ratio compares outcome odds in groups with different gambling characteristics. Neither establishes a direct causal effect. The 2024 authors emphasized the shortage of strong longitudinal evidence about directionality, and observed that risk of study bias was related to the measured prevalence of suicidal ideation. Several included samples were drawn from help-seeking or clinically affected populations and therefore may not represent everyone who gambles. Kristensen et al., 2024.
A second meta-analysis by Wang and colleagues, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research in January 2026, synthesized 14 observational studies through March 2025. It reported adjusted pooled odds ratios of 1.58 for suicidal ideation, 2.91 for suicide attempts, and 8.52 for suicide mortality among people with gambling disorder. The analyses also revealed differences by study design and region. In particular, results from case-control studies were not statistically significant in the reported subgroup analysis, while cross-sectional and cohort subgroup estimates were significant. The estimates should not be combined informally into a universal individual-risk multiplier because outcomes, adjustments, sampling and baseline risks differ. Wang et al., 2026.
Evidence from longitudinal and clinical registers
A Swedish nationwide register study by Karlsson and Håkansson examined people with diagnosed gambling disorder and documented increased mortality and suicidality in this clinical population. A separate Swedish register study of 2,099 people with gambling disorder identified 417 individuals with a recorded suicide attempt, including 10 fatal cases, during its 2005–2016 study window. Those figures are observations among patients recorded in a particular national health system and over a specific observation period. They should never be interpreted as the expected rate among all people who gamble or as an estimate of immediate risk at an individual appointment. Karlsson and Håkansson, 2018; Håkansson and Karlsson, 2020.
In the second register study, co-occurring mood, anxiety, alcohol, and drug use disorders were associated with suicidal behavior. The combination of gambling problems with other health conditions is therefore central to assessment. Register studies offer strengths, including temporally recorded diagnoses and reduced reliance on recall, but they may miss unrecognized gambling harms, suicidality never disclosed to services, important socioeconomic variables, and changing clinical circumstances. Håkansson and Karlsson, 2020.
What current evidence establishes
Across different research designs, the association between gambling problems and suicidality is consistent enough to justify routine clinical attention. Its strength varies substantially. A systematic review can establish an overall pattern of association; prospective cohorts can help examine temporal order; qualitative interviews can clarify lived experience; and clinical trials can test particular interventions. The findings do not support an inevitable sequence from gambling loss to suicide. Suicidal behavior develops through multiple interacting processes, and many people experiencing gambling-related harm recover with appropriate assistance. Kristensen et al., 2024; Marionneau and Nikkinen, 2022; NICE NG248.
Why Gambling Problems Can Become Connected to Suicidal Distress
Debt, financial precarity, and perceived entrapment
Financial loss is a particularly visible pathway. Gambling can deplete savings, disrupt rent or mortgage payments, create unsecured debts, interfere with work, and place relationships under strain. The psychological effects depend on more than the amount lost. A person may experience sudden discovery of hidden debt, fear about dependents, threats to housing, legal difficulties, or a belief that no repair is possible. These interpretations can amplify distress even when financial remedies and other forms of help remain available. The World Health Organization describes financial distress, poverty, family breakdown, and suicide among the important public-health harms associated with gambling. WHO, 2024.
A systematic review of qualitative evidence by Marionneau and Nikkinen identified indebtedness and shame as recurring processes in accounts of gambling-related suicide and suicidality. The review included 20 studies and also described psychiatric conditions, personal circumstances, and life events that interact with gambling. The findings support understanding debt as a component of a complex social and emotional crisis; they do not imply that every debt problem produces suicidal ideation or that debt reduction alone resolves a psychiatric emergency. Marionneau and Nikkinen, 2022.
Shame, secrecy, and delayed disclosure
People may conceal gambling problems because they anticipate condemnation or fear harming family relationships. Some attempt to manage losses privately through additional gambling, creating further exposure to risk. Shame may limit disclosure to clinicians, family members, creditors, and financial advisers. A 2026 rapid review of 26 qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies associated shame, stigma, indebtedness, and concealment with delayed help-seeking. The review also found insufficient direct evidence to establish a single causal path from these experiences to suicidal crisis. This distinction matters: shame and secrecy are important subjects of clinical inquiry without being deterministic suicide predictors. Mallon et al., 2026.
Nonjudgmental communication can make disclosure more possible. A useful professional stance involves asking about gambling directly, allowing the person to explain what happened, avoiding blame, and emphasizing that evidence-based help exists for gambling harms, psychological distress, and practical financial problems. The priority is to hear the person's present account while assessing current safety. NICE NG248.
Loss chasing, reinforcement, and acute emotional shifts
Loss chasing refers to further gambling in an attempt to recover previous losses. Variable reinforcement, salient near misses, expectations of an imminent win, and distorted judgments about probability may sustain continued gambling despite adverse outcomes. When a new episode increases losses or exposes previously concealed behavior, feelings can change abruptly. In its 2025 guidance, NICE advises clinicians that suicide risk may be particularly important immediately following a gambling episode, and that relapse can be associated with serious distress. This is a practical warning for assessment, although the precise duration and individual pattern of an acute risk window remain incompletely quantified. NICE NG248.
An individual may move between hope of recovery, escalating losses, distress, concealment, and attempts to regain control. This sequence is a plausible clinical formulation when supported by the person's history. It should not be applied as a presumed trajectory to everyone with gambling problems. Clinicians assess what the gambling episode meant to the person, which events preceded a crisis, and how distress is changing in real time. Marionneau and Nikkinen, 2022; NICE NG248.
Depression, substance use, and other co-occurring conditions
Mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol use disorder, and other substance use disorders may coexist with gambling disorder and are associated with greater clinical complexity. Depression may involve hopelessness or social withdrawal; intoxication may reduce inhibition and affect judgment; sleep disruption can aggravate coping difficulties. These processes can interact with gambling-related financial and interpersonal stress. In the Swedish clinical register study, mood and substance use disorders were among the strongest measured correlates of suicidal behavior. Håkansson and Karlsson, 2020.
A full assessment also considers previous self-harm, trauma, bipolar symptoms, psychosis, neurodevelopmental needs, medication effects on impulse control, chronic pain, and social isolation when relevant. Co-occurrence must be evaluated rather than presumed. Gambling disorder can also exist without a documented psychiatric comorbidity, which is why gambling-related harms themselves warrant direct inquiry about suicide. NICE specifically identifies gambling as potentially a dominant risk factor even in the absence of other recognized risk factors. NICE NG248.
Clinical Risk Assessment: Questions That Matter
Ask about gambling in mental health and crisis care
Clinicians should consider gambling when a person presents with suicidal thoughts, depression, anxiety, financial distress, relationship disruption, substance use, or another condition in which gambling-related harm may be overlooked. Questions can establish whether the person gambles, the form and frequency of activity, recent losses, borrowing, concealment, loss chasing, access to gambling products, and whether a new event has intensified distress. The assessment should also inquire about people affected by the gambling and immediate practical concerns such as food, housing, and employment. NICE NG248.
A gambling-specific questionnaire such as the Problem Gambling Severity Index or the South Oaks Gambling Screen can organize screening or broader assessment. Its score does not measure acute suicidal intent, establish all diagnostic criteria, or substitute for a conversation about the person's immediate situation. A low or missing gambling screening score must not be used to dismiss direct evidence of a suicidal crisis. NICE NG248.
Ask directly about suicidal thoughts and present safety
Professionals should ask clearly and respectfully about thoughts of suicide, intent, plans, past attempts, recent self-harm, access to potentially lethal means, ability to remain safe, and sources of immediate support. They should explore the timing of suicidal thoughts relative to recent gambling episodes, the disclosure of debts, interpersonal conflict, legal or housing pressures, and any relapse after treatment. The assessment needs to consider the person's narrative and current context, including protective relationships and accessible care. NICE NG248; NICE NG225.
The goal of this discussion is a collaborative understanding of urgent needs and an appropriate level of care. Emergency or specialist crisis assessment is indicated when there is considerable or immediate danger. Clinicians should follow local safeguarding, consent, and emergency protocols, and arrange appropriate monitoring and follow-up. Detailed suicide assessment and decisions about admission belong to qualified services with access to the patient's full context. NICE NG248.
Why risk scores cannot predict an individual suicide
NICE's self-harm guideline advises against using risk assessment scales or simple labels such as low, medium, or high risk to predict suicide or decide who receives treatment or discharge. A numerical category can obscure rapid changes in exposure, access to support, alcohol use, hopelessness, or suicidal intent. Clinical formulation instead integrates current presentation, recent events, history, protective factors, and actions needed for immediate and longer-term safety. NICE NG225.
This principle is especially pertinent to gambling harms: financial circumstances and emotional responses can change quickly. A person may deny intent during one conversation and experience a new crisis after another gambling episode or financial disclosure. Follow-up arrangements, clear routes back to care, and consent-based support networks therefore matter alongside an initial assessment. NICE NG248.
Safety Planning for Gambling-Related Suicidal Crises
A safety plan is a collaborative, practical document prepared with a person who may experience suicidal thoughts. It identifies personal warning signs, coping actions, people and places offering support, professional and emergency contacts, and steps to make the environment safer. A plan should be accessible during a crisis, reviewed as circumstances change, and linked to an appropriate clinical treatment and follow-up pathway. NICE recommends collaborative safety planning when a person experiencing gambling-related harm is at risk of self-harm or suicide. NICE NG225; NICE NG248.
Recognizing personal warning signs
The first element describes individualized signals that a crisis may be intensifying. Relevant examples may include panic after a gambling loss, inability to sleep, concealing new debt, withdrawal from trusted people, feeling trapped after disclosure, a sudden increase in gambling, or the return of suicidal thoughts. These are prompts to use the plan, not a checklist that classifies a person's risk. The most useful warning signs are specific, recognizable to the person, and connected with actions they have agreed to take. NICE NG225.
Coping strategies and immediate connection
The plan records feasible short-term coping activities and social contacts that can interrupt isolation and help the person move through a period of escalating distress. A clinician may help identify calming routines, a safer place to spend time, a person willing to talk, or an environment away from gambling prompts. If distress remains severe, the plan directs the person toward crisis services or emergency care. The approach should not rely on willpower alone or treat financial decision-making as a replacement for clinical suicide prevention. NICE NG225.
Involving trusted people and restricting access to harm
Where appropriate and agreed with the person, supportive family members or friends can help with check-ins, transportation to services, practical tasks, and access to crisis contacts. Clinicians should also discuss ways to reduce access to potentially lethal means of suicide in accordance with clinical guidance. Decisions about involving relatives require attention to confidentiality, autonomy, safeguarding, coercion, and the possibility of harmful family dynamics. A trusted person should have a clear understanding of when emergency help is required. NICE NG225; NICE NG248.
Gambling-specific protection belongs alongside suicide safety
A second, coordinated set of actions addresses the gambling situation contributing to distress. Depending on the person's circumstances and preferences, these may include account self-exclusion, bank gambling-payment blocks, restricting marketing messages, removing easy access to gambling applications, and obtaining independent debt advice. Some people may agree to temporary assistance with financial management from a trusted person. Such measures should be voluntary, proportionate, and evaluated for potential coercion or economic abuse. They can reduce further gambling exposure while mental health and practical support begin; they do not replace emergency suicide care. NICE NG248.
If a recent loss or relapse has triggered an acute suicidal crisis, major financial decisions and negotiations may need to be deferred until immediate safety has been addressed. Care teams can then coordinate treatment, income and debt support, housing services, and relevant legal advice. A crisis plan should identify whom to contact when gambling-related triggers recur and should be revisited after changes in financial exposure or treatment. NICE NG248.
Evidence supporting safety planning
A 2021 meta-analysis of six studies with 3,536 participants found that safety planning-type interventions were associated with fewer suicidal behaviors compared with control conditions, with a pooled relative risk of 0.57. The meta-analysis found no significant pooled effect on suicidal ideation. This is evidence about suicide prevention in broader clinical populations, not a gambling-specific randomized trial. It supports safety planning as one part of care while highlighting the need for additional intervention against enduring suicidal thoughts and the conditions that sustain them. Nuij et al., 2021.
In a 2018 multisite cohort comparison of emergency department patients, a Safety Planning Intervention combined with structured follow-up contact was associated with fewer suicidal behaviors and greater treatment engagement over six months than usual care. Its nonrandomized design and specific veteran healthcare setting limit direct generalization. Taken together with guideline recommendations, the evidence favors collaborative planning and active follow-up while avoiding the claim that a written plan alone guarantees safety. Stanley et al., 2018; NICE NG225.
Treatment and Continuing Recovery
Address the suicidal crisis and gambling disorder together
The initial clinical priority depends on present safety. An active suicidal crisis may require immediate emergency or specialist mental health care. Once safety is stabilized, care should address gambling behavior, depression or other co-occurring conditions, substance use where relevant, and the practical consequences of gambling. Coordination reduces the burden of navigating multiple services while distressed. A gambling-specific intervention is an important part of recovery, but treatment for gambling alone should not be represented as proven to prevent suicide. NICE NG248.
NICE recommends gambling-specific cognitive behavioral therapy delivered by trained practitioners, with group treatment usually offered first and individual treatment available when preferable or appropriate. CBT may address inaccurate beliefs about gambling, situational triggers, decision-making patterns, urges, relapse risks, and recovery goals. Motivational interviewing can help people who are ambivalent about seeking care. These methods have clinical value for gambling harms; the specific effect of a gambling CBT program on suicide mortality remains insufficiently established. NICE NG248.
Relapse prevention and follow-up
Relapse or return to gambling can be emotionally destabilizing, especially after a period of reduced gambling or abstinence. A useful relapse response examines what changed, offers timely re-entry to treatment, checks current suicidality, and restores practical protective measures without blame. NICE highlights the need for continuing follow-up and access to renewed care, including after relapse. Recovery plans should accommodate changes in relationships, employment, financial pressure, advertising exposure, and co-occurring mental health symptoms. NICE NG248.
Peer support may supplement professional treatment by offering mutual understanding and help with isolation and disclosure. Family members and partners also may need their own mental health, financial, and practical support. Service coordination should respect the needs of affected others and avoid placing responsibility for another person's safety entirely on relatives. NICE NG248.
Medication and specialist care
There is no medication that substitutes for evaluating and treating an active suicidal crisis. NICE permits specialist consideration of naltrexone for gambling severity when a suitable course of psychological treatment has not achieved desired outcomes or repeated relapses have occurred. The guidance describes this as an off-label use and specifies specialist supervision and medical safety checks. Such recommendations address gambling symptoms; they should not be presented as evidence that naltrexone prevents suicidal behavior in people with gambling disorder. Other prescribed medication may be appropriate for diagnosed co-occurring conditions under their own clinical guidelines. NICE NG248.
The Role of Online Gambling and the Commercial Environment
Digital gambling can be accessible continuously and may combine rapid wagering cycles, personalized promotions, live sports betting, easy deposits, and repeated reminders. These conditions can extend exposure for people already struggling with control and may intensify financial or psychological harm. Gambling advertising and products belong within a public-health account of risk, not solely within explanations centered on individual impulse control. WHO describes gambling commercialization and digitization as drivers of expanding exposure, while NICE calls for discussion of advertising and gambling product characteristics during assessment. WHO, 2024; NICE NG248.
Studies do not yet determine exactly how much any single digital product feature changes suicide risk after accounting for individual vulnerabilities and financial circumstances. The clinically defensible approach is to ask which products were used, what losses or other harms occurred, whether gambling was accelerated by promotional contact, and which controls may reduce further harm. Regulations, safer product design, independent research, and access to help can complement individual treatment. WHO, 2024.
Adolescents, Families, and Different Clinical Populations
Young people can encounter gambling through sports betting, online platforms, and gambling-like monetization, sometimes before they understand financial risk. Adolescents may also disclose problems differently from adults, and school, family, developmental, and safeguarding contexts require appropriate assessment. The scientific literature on gambling-related suicide in youth is less extensive than the broader adult literature; pooled adult odds ratios should not be directly applied to adolescents. Risk assessment should integrate developmentally appropriate mental health care and family involvement when safe and appropriate. WHO, 2024; NICE NG248.
Gender, age, culture, and financial responsibilities may shape stigma, patterns of gambling, and opportunities to seek care. Some clinical samples are disproportionately male and some research is concentrated in high-income countries. A 2026 rapid review found limited direct evidence describing how culturally specific experiences of shame and indebtedness contribute to suicidal crises. Clinical encounters should therefore use individualized questions and offer accessible, culturally responsive services while research improves. Mallon et al., 2026.
Partners, children, and other affected people may experience fear, financial insecurity, anger, conflict, and mental health difficulties independently of whether the person gambling meets a formal diagnosis. Care systems should offer direct support to affected others, including advice about financial safeguarding, communication, and confidential psychological support. Family participation in treatment should depend on mutual agreement, safety, and respect for the needs of everyone involved. NICE NG248.
Research Methods, Limitations, and Unanswered Questions
The association between gambling and suicidality is supported by systematic reviews, clinical samples, and register studies. Its causal interpretation is more challenging. Depression may both increase vulnerability to gambling problems and emerge after losses. Substance use, early adversity, and social disadvantage can influence both gambling and suicidality. The sequence of financial loss, concealment, help-seeking, and suicidal distress also varies between individuals. Observational statistical adjustment can reduce some confounding while leaving unmeasured causes unresolved. Kristensen et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2026.
Measurement deserves close attention. Research may use DSM diagnoses, ICD-coded service records, PGSI-based groups, or broader reports of gambling problems. These measures identify overlapping but nonidentical populations. Suicide outcomes likewise vary between self-reported lifetime thoughts, clinically documented attempts, hospital records, and death registries. Some studies group suicide attempts and other forms of self-harm differently; others omit timing relative to gambling episodes. Pooling such studies without recognizing heterogeneity risks creating a false impression of precision. Kristensen et al., 2024.
Research gaps include larger prospective cohorts with repeated measurement of gambling exposure, independent assessment of comorbidities, better differentiation of suicidal thoughts from behavior, and studies examining debt, shame, and product exposure over time. Researchers also need direct trials of integrated gambling treatment and suicide-prevention pathways, improved representation of women and diverse cultural populations, and evaluation of service models supporting family members. The newer qualitative evidence emphasizes the importance of measuring when and why people seek assistance as gambling harms become more visible. Mallon et al., 2026; Marionneau and Nikkinen, 2022.
Because gambling is a commercial industry, the design, funding, and interpretation of research deserve transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest. Clinical recommendations should draw from independent evidence, direct patient outcomes, and public-health standards. The WHO urges structural measures to reduce gambling harms, while NICE requires gambling treatment commissioning and provision without gambling-industry influence. WHO, 2024; NICE NG248.
Practical Questions and Evidence-Based Answers
Does a gambling disorder diagnosis mean someone is suicidal?
No individual prognosis follows from the diagnostic label. At the group level, suicidal thoughts, attempts, and deaths are more frequent in populations experiencing gambling problems, which warrants direct assessment. A clinician needs to ask about current ideation, intent, recent gambling events, history, comorbid conditions, and the person's available support. Some people with serious gambling harms have never been diagnosed; their suicidal distress still deserves immediate attention. Kristensen et al., 2024; NICE NG248.
Can a sudden gambling loss trigger a crisis?
A recent episode or financial disclosure can be an important immediate context for distress. NICE explicitly recommends attention to suicidal thoughts and intent after gambling-related harm and warns that risk may intensify following an episode. The timing and causal processes vary individually. Anyone expressing suicidal thoughts after a major loss needs a respectful, timely safety assessment rather than an assumption that emotions will settle on their own. NICE NG248.
Can gambling-specific CBT replace suicide prevention treatment?
Gambling-focused CBT is recommended to address gambling severity, patterns of use, and relapse. Active suicidal distress requires its own assessment and care pathway, including emergency support, safety planning, treatment of co-occurring psychiatric conditions, and follow-up when indicated. Coordinated interventions can address these needs together. Evidence for gambling CBT should not be translated into an unsupported claim that it directly prevents suicide deaths. NICE NG248; NICE NG225.
What should relatives do when someone discloses gambling losses and suicidal thoughts?
Take the disclosure seriously, listen without blame, ask whether immediate danger is present, and help the person connect with emergency or crisis services when needed. Offer practical companionship and support in contacting a qualified clinician; do not promise secrecy about an imminent danger. Later, independent financial advice and gambling-specific support can address the pressures sustaining distress. Family members may seek their own care and should discuss boundaries and safeguarding with qualified professionals. NICE NG248; NICE NG225.
What is the central scientific conclusion?
Gambling-related harm and suicidal outcomes show a substantial, replicated population-level association. The clinical implication is routine, direct inquiry about suicidal thoughts in people experiencing gambling harm, rapid response to acute danger, collaborative safety planning, and coordinated treatment of gambling and co-occurring needs. The scientific implication is the need for careful separation of association, individual prognosis, and causality, with prevention addressing both personal care and the wider gambling environment. Kristensen et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2026; NICE NG248.
Related Articles
Cluster Gambling, Gaming and Behavioral Addictions — The central research chapter explains recognized gambling and gaming disorders, mechanisms of harm, assessment, treatment, and public-health implications.
Why People Consider Suicide: Psychological Models and Evidence — An overview of psychological explanations and evidence for suicidal thinking, beyond any single gambling-related pathway.
Substance Use Disorders and Suicide Risk: Evidence, Assessment, and Safety — Clinical evidence concerning co-occurring substance use and suicidal outcomes.
Suicide Prevention in Primary Care: Screening, Assessment, and Follow-Up — Clinical assessment principles and continuing care in a general healthcare setting.
References
Håkansson, A., and Karlsson, A. (2020). Suicide attempt in patients with gambling disorder: Associations with comorbidity including substance use disorders. PubMed record.
Karlsson, A., and Håkansson, A. (2018). Gambling disorder, increased mortality, suicidality, and associated comorbidity: A longitudinal nationwide register study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(4), 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.112.
Kristensen, J. H., Pallesen, S., Bauer, J., Leino, T., Griffiths, M. D., and Erevik, E. K. (2024). Suicidality among individuals with gambling problems: A meta-analytic literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 150(1), 82–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000411.
Mallon, S., Runacres, J., McCormack, F., Riley, V., and Motta-Yanac, E. (2026). Shame, stigma and indebtedness in gambling-related harm: A rapid review of help-seeking and suicidality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 23(9), 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23091141.
Marionneau, V., and Nikkinen, J. (2022). Gambling-related suicides and suicidality: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 980303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.980303.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2022). Self-harm: Assessment, management and preventing recurrence. NICE guideline NG225. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng225/chapter/recommendations.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2025). Gambling-related harms: Identification, assessment and management. NICE guideline NG248. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng248/chapter/recommendations.
Nuij, C., van Ballegooijen, W., de Beurs, D., et al. (2021). Safety planning-type interventions for suicide prevention: Meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 219(2), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.50.
Stanley, B., Brown, G. K., Brenner, L. A., et al. (2018). Comparison of the Safety Planning Intervention with follow-up vs usual care of suicidal patients treated in the emergency department. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(9), 894–900. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1776.
Wang, L., Qin, X., Lu, Y., Pan, H., Li, X., and Luo, L. (2026). Gambling disorder and suicide risk: A meta-epidemiology study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 192, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.10.067.
World Health Organization. (2024). Gambling. WHO fact sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/gambling.