Gambling disorder in women is a clinically recognized behavioral addiction characterized by persistent or recurrent gambling that becomes difficult to control and produces significant distress, impaired functioning, or harm. Women experience the same underlying disorder recognized in men, while exposure to gambling products, emotional circumstances, financial resources, caregiving roles, stigma, interpersonal safety, and pathways into care can shape how problems develop and become visible. Understanding those circumstances improves assessment and treatment. Gender averages never determine an individual diagnosis. American Psychiatric Association and Gartner et al. (2022) provide the clinical and research context.
A clinical assessment begins with the gambling pattern and its consequences, then considers the person's social environment and co-occurring conditions. Women may present first with anxiety, depression, debt, insomnia, relationship conflict, or distress associated with trauma rather than explicitly requesting gambling treatment. An open, private, nonjudgmental conversation is therefore central to recognizing possible gambling harms and ensuring access to appropriate support. NICE (2025).
What Gambling Disorder Means for Women
Gambling disorder, problem gambling, and gambling-related harms
The term gambling disorder refers to a formal diagnosis within the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-TR and the World Health Organization's ICD-11. Its defining features include impaired control, continued gambling despite negative consequences, and important disruptions to daily life. Problem gambling is used more broadly in research and services to describe a continuum of problematic behavior or elevated risk. A person can experience severe debt, family stress, or psychological harm without meeting the full diagnostic threshold. The WHO (2024) and the Lancet Public Health Commission (2024)00167-1) emphasize the breadth of harm beyond diagnosed disorder.
The distinction is important in women whose gambling is concealed or occurs in forms other people regard as harmless recreation, such as lotteries, bingo, electronic gaming machines, or smartphone casino games. Product labels carry no diagnostic weight. A clinician considers frequency, money spent relative to available resources, loss of control, repeated unsuccessful efforts to stop, deception, losses and debts, and effects on relationships, work, caregiving, sleep, and health. A low absolute expenditure may still represent a serious harm in a household with little disposable income.
Sex, gender, and diversity among women
Research reports frequently use female and male categories based on survey responses or administrative records, sometimes without measuring gender identity, social roles, or exposure to discrimination. Biological sex, gender identity, economic circumstances, and social treatment are different variables. Most older comparisons cannot identify which dimension accounts for an observed difference. The evidence is especially sparse for transgender women, nonbinary people, women with disabilities, and many racialized, migrant, Indigenous, and lower-income populations. A detailed review of 126 studies documented both recurring sex-related prevalence differences and inconsistent findings in several other domains. Gartner et al. (2022).
Women also differ enormously by age, gambling product, education, location, sexual orientation, family situation, and previous exposure to gambling. Some use sports wagering, poker, and online casinos; others encounter gambling through a partner or family member without gambling themselves. Women who experience harm because somebody else gambles require a different assessment from women who meet criteria for gambling disorder. Research incorporating power, social identity, and place offers a more useful account of these diverse situations than a single gender stereotype. Fannin et al. (2024).
How Common Is Gambling Disorder Among Women?
Prevalence, participation, and denominator problems
On average, population studies more often identify gambling disorder or elevated problem-gambling scores among men than women. That group-level observation is reasonably established, but prevalence depends heavily on country, product exposure, age, diagnostic instrument, sampling, reporting practices, and whether the denominator includes all adults or only people who gamble. In its 2024 global fact sheet, WHO estimated that approximately 5.5% of women and 11.9% of men experience some level of gambling harm. These figures describe a broad harm measure, not the prevalence of diagnosed gambling disorder among women. WHO's estimate that 1.2% of adults globally have gambling disorder likewise applies to adults overall. WHO (2024).
A woman who never gambles is counted differently from a woman who gambles monthly, and both are counted differently from women sampled in a specialized treatment clinic. National surveys may miss people experiencing homelessness, people with unstable telephone access, and those reluctant to disclose gambling. Screening scales can change classification when different cutoff scores are used. Consequently, one apparently precise global percentage for women with diagnosed gambling disorder would conceal substantial uncertainty. The Gartner et al. review (2022) and the Lancet Commission (2024)00167-1) explain major comparability and monitoring limitations.
Changes in digital access and product participation
Online gambling brings betting into private, ordinary environments, often through a phone that can be accessed while alone or managing domestic responsibilities. Electronic gaming machines, rapid-repeat games, online casino products, and marketing can permit extended sessions with frequent outcomes and little interruption. Emerging evidence suggests that younger women participate across a wider range of products than older stereotypes imply. This does not mean that all women face the same risk, or that online access causes a disorder by itself. Product design, intensity, financial vulnerability, prior gambling behavior, and social circumstances interact. Fannin et al. (2024) and Wardle et al. (2024)00167-1).
Risk Factors and Pathways Into Harm
Emotional distress and gambling as temporary relief
For some women, gambling serves as an attempted escape from loneliness, chronic stress, anxiety, grief, low mood, or overwhelming responsibilities. A short period of absorption can produce relief from distress; the relief can reinforce repeated gambling even when the long-term consequences increase distress. This is negative reinforcement: behavior is strengthened because it temporarily reduces an unpleasant experience. Other people gamble primarily for excitement, social connection, achievement, or financial aspiration. Motives are mixed and change over time, and emotional escape is neither uniquely female nor present in every affected woman. Gartner et al. (2022).
The resulting feedback loop can become self-sustaining. Financial losses produce fear and shame; gambling is revisited to distract from that fear or recover losses; further losses create new distress. Clinicians should explore what gambling accomplishes in the moment, what it costs later, and which alternative coping resources are available. The direction of causality between depression and gambling can vary. Some symptoms precede harmful gambling, others are intensified by losses, and both can emerge from shared vulnerabilities. NICE (2025).
Reward learning, losses, and distorted expectations
Variable and unpredictable reinforcement can strengthen repetitive gambling. A near-miss may feel subjectively close to winning despite being an actual loss, and small intermittent wins may sustain attention during prolonged negative returns. People may overestimate their ability to influence random outcomes, interpret streaks as predictive, or treat an early win as evidence of exceptional skill. Loss chasing occurs when gambling continues or resumes to recover money already lost. These mechanisms operate across genders; their impact depends on the game, experience, cognitive expectations, emotional state, and available safeguards. American Psychiatric Association and WHO (2024).
Loss chasing deserves particular attention when a woman is trying to replace money needed for rent, childcare, medical care, or household bills. The perceived urgency of fixing the financial situation may drive further high-risk decisions. Effective assessment therefore asks about both gambling behavior and the practical consequences of losses. Risk communication should explain the independence of chance outcomes, the expected financial disadvantage of commercial gambling, and why continued gambling cannot provide a dependable recovery plan.
Interpersonal violence, trauma, and safeguarding
Some studies describe gambling in the context of intimate partner violence, coercive control, isolation, and previous trauma. A qualitative investigation of women who experienced male partner violence documented how gambling could be used as a form of temporary escape and could become entangled with further financial and relationship harm. This evidence identifies meaningful lived experiences but does not establish a universal pathway or population-level causal rate. Hing et al. (2023).
Financial secrecy may arise from gambling-related shame, from fear of an abusive partner, or from both. An apparently simple recommendation to disclose debts to a partner could endanger someone experiencing coercion. Professionals should ask about immediate safety, financial control, threats, and dependence in private, and help the person decide whom to involve in care. Partner participation is appropriate only when it is safe and freely chosen. NICE (2025).
Income, care work, social isolation, and accessibility
Financial precarity can magnify the impact of each gambling loss. Unpaid caregiving, inflexible employment, childcare needs, transportation costs, and limited privacy can also restrict opportunities to attend treatment. These circumstances are not psychological deficits: they shape exposure to risks and access to assistance. Some women gamble in venues perceived as socially welcoming or at home when social connection is limited. Others face gambling encouragement from partners, peers, or targeted advertising. Research examining the environments where women live and gamble supports assessing these contextual factors directly. McCarthy et al. (2019) and Fannin et al. (2024).
Does Gambling Disorder Progress Faster in Women?
The telescoping hypothesis and contradictory findings
The phrase telescoping describes a proposed pattern in which women begin gambling later but progress from initiation to severe problems over a shorter interval than men. Several early clinical studies supported this possibility. A study of 71 treatment-seeking people, for example, reported later average onset among women and a shorter interval to meeting disorder criteria. Because participants had already entered treatment, the sample could not represent all women who gamble. Grant et al. (2012).
A general-population Australian twin cohort of 4,663 adults reached a different conclusion. Women did not show the proposed accelerated progression; men had higher hazards of progressing to the first disordered-gambling symptom and a diagnosis. The researchers identified differences in sampling and age of initiation as important explanatory considerations. Slutske et al. (2015). Later reviews continue to characterize evidence about sex-related progression as mixed. Gartner et al. (2022).
The clinical implication is straightforward: progression should be evaluated individually. A patient whose gambling has escalated quickly needs timely care regardless of gender, and a woman whose difficulties have accumulated slowly also warrants attention. Retrospective reports, treatment-selection bias, differences in gambling products, and changes in diagnostic criteria prevent a single universal rule about the speed of addiction.
Recognizing Symptoms and Harm
Behavioral changes that merit assessment
Warning signs can include repeated attempts to reduce gambling that do not last; escalating time or spending; gambling during distress; concealing accounts, bets, or losses; borrowing or moving money to gamble; increasing preoccupation; and returning to gamble to win losses back. A person may stop participating in social activities, miss sleep, neglect work tasks, or experience strained relationships. Changes can be subtle when gambling takes place through private applications and electronic statements. The American Psychiatric Association identifies these behaviors among the characteristic features used in assessment. American Psychiatric Association.
Financial harm also warrants attention when clinical symptoms remain below the formal threshold. The relevant question is how gambling affects the person's actual life. Overdue bills, emergency borrowing, household conflict, distress about spending, and compromised safety may call for practical intervention before a formal diagnosis is established. People affected by somebody else's gambling can experience similar harms without gambling themselves. Lancet Commission (2024)00167-1).
Hidden presentations in health services
Women sometimes seek assistance for insomnia, panic, depression, or debt while treating gambling as too embarrassing or irrelevant to mention. A service that waits for the words gambling addiction may miss these cases. NICE recommends asking about gambling when people present with mental health concerns, financial difficulty, alcohol or substance dependence, domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns, and other relevant vulnerabilities. Questions should be asked with consent, sensitivity, and clear explanations of confidentiality. NICE (2025).
Clinical Diagnosis and Screening
DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 criteria
DSM-5-TR gambling disorder is diagnosed when persistent, recurrent problematic gambling causes clinically significant impairment or distress and at least four qualifying criteria occur within a 12-month period, with behavior not better explained by a manic episode. Criteria address preoccupation, increasing stakes, difficulty stopping, irritability on stopping, gambling under distress, chasing, deception, jeopardizing important relationships or opportunities, and dependence on financial rescue. American Psychiatric Association.
ICD-11 describes gambling disorder in terms of impaired control, gambling taking increasing priority over other activities, and continuation or escalation despite negative consequences, accompanied by significant impairment. The pattern is generally evident over an extended period, although severe cases may be diagnosed sooner under the applicable clinical guidance. The DSM and ICD approaches are related but have different operational structures. Neither uses a separate set of diagnostic criteria for women. WHO: Addictive Behaviour.
Screening questionnaires are not diagnoses
The Problem Gambling Severity Index and South Oaks Gambling Screen can support detection and structured discussion. A cutoff indicates a level of concern under a particular instrument and scoring system; it does not itself establish DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 gambling disorder. A complete assessment considers time course, product type, losses, clinical impairment, personal circumstances, comorbidity, medication, safeguarding, and suicide risk. The same screening result can have different practical significance according to resources and circumstances. NICE (2025).
Assessment tools should be considered alongside their validation populations. Earlier studies frequently relied on binary sex categories and did not examine whether items function equally across gender identities and cultural contexts. Underreporting caused by stigma or fear can also distort screening scores. A confidential, collaborative interview provides information that a single score cannot supply. Gartner et al. (2022).
Differential assessment and co-occurring conditions
Clinicians should consider depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, ADHD, substance use disorders, and bipolar disorder, as well as medication-associated changes in impulse control. Gambling during a manic episode requires a different diagnostic evaluation from an enduring gambling disorder. People can experience both a separate psychiatric condition and a gambling disorder; identifying one does not negate the other. NICE recommends considering whether mental health symptoms preceded gambling, arose as a consequence, or require concurrent treatment. NICE (2025).
Co-occurring conditions are important treatment considerations but correlations do not reveal their temporal order. Trauma histories and psychological symptoms reported at clinics may be more common among treatment seekers than among women in community samples. Clinical interviews should avoid assuming a particular cause from gender or a single reported symptom. The evidence requires attention to study selection and the person's history. Gartner et al. (2022).
Why Women May Delay or Avoid Help
Shame, blame, and self-stigma
Gambling disorder is associated with moral judgments that frame affected people as irresponsible or greedy. Stigma can be internalized, leading people to hide problems, doubt that they deserve care, and avoid services. Women may experience additional pressure arising from expectations about financial responsibility, motherhood, or caregiving. A review of gambling-related stigma identified women with gambling disorder among those vulnerable to higher self-stigma, while also emphasizing the need for more direct studies of effective stigma reduction. Quigley (2022).
Disclosure often entails several fears at once: losing control over finances, being judged as a parent, damaging a relationship, confronting debt, or learning that a service is not private. A healthcare professional can reduce these barriers by explaining that gambling-related harm is a recognized health concern, using neutral language, and offering options for confidential help. This approach follows NICE guidance on empathic, person-centered care. NICE (2025).
Treatment design and practical exclusion
Specialist gambling services have historically drawn disproportionately on male samples and male-centered assumptions. Women may encounter groups where they feel exposed, misunderstood, or unsafe. Appointments that coincide with childcare or paid work can be impossible to attend. Cost, transport, disability access, language, cultural fit, and digital privacy can pose further barriers. Women-only groups may help some clients, while others prefer individual care, mixed groups, or remote sessions. The patient's informed preference should determine the arrangement wherever clinically feasible. NICE (2025).
A 2026 systematic review identified 18 quantitative female-specific prevention or treatment studies: five focused on prevention and thirteen on treatment. The treatment literature was predominantly cognitive behavioral, with evidence of improvement in gambling severity and psychological distress, but substantial variation in design and outcomes. Only one prevention study included follow-up assessment. Dropout and relapse were important concerns, especially where psychopathology or social support needs were greater. These findings support individualized delivery while showing why claims of a proven one-size-fits-all women-specific therapy would exceed the evidence. Monreal-Bartolomé et al. (2026).
Confidentiality and help-seeking routes
Access can improve when services offer transparent privacy policies, anonymous first-contact options, private appointments, remote care when preferred, flexible hours, childcare accommodations, and clear referral paths. Services should ask privately whether messages, electronic records, or online appointments could be monitored by someone else. When violence or coercion is suspected, safeguarding must be integrated with gambling treatment rather than treated as an afterthought. NICE (2025) and Hing et al. (2023).
Evidence-Based Treatment and Recovery
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Gambling-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) addresses triggers, beliefs about chance, responses to urges, financial and behavioral routines, problem solving, and relapse prevention. NICE recommends offering group CBT, with individual CBT when a group is not suitable or preferred. Treatment should be provided by appropriately trained clinicians and adapted to the person's risks and needs. CBT does not require assuming that every person gambles for the same reason. NICE (2025).
A Cochrane review of randomized evidence found short-term benefits of CBT for gambling behavior and symptom severity, but long-term durability was uncertain and the quality of much evidence was low or very low. The newer women-focused synthesis reports promising treatment effects but limited knowledge about the comparative effectiveness of different adaptations for women. A well-supported practical choice is therefore gambling-specific CBT delivered with collaborative attention to trauma, safety, caregiving needs, and concurrent disorders rather than a claim that female patients require an entirely separate protocol. Cowlishaw et al. (2022) and Monreal-Bartolomé et al. (2026).
Motivational interviewing and engagement
Motivational interviewing can help a person explore ambivalence about change, clarify personally important goals, and move toward further support. It is particularly relevant when shame, fear, or uncertainty makes formal treatment difficult to begin. NICE recommends considering brief motivational interviewing to encourage engagement and longer motivational work where appropriate. Evidence supports potential improvements in gambling behavior, although studies vary and stronger research is needed on sustained benefits and subgroups. NICE (2025) and Cowlishaw et al. (2022).
Medication and co-occurring psychiatric care
Medication is not a routine first-line solution for gambling disorder. NICE recommends considering naltrexone under specialist supervision in particular circumstances after an appropriate course of psychological treatment has not achieved the desired result or repeated relapses persist. Its use for gambling disorder was off-label when the 2025 guidance was issued. Medication decisions require assessment of contraindications, concurrent opioid use, liver health, reproductive considerations when relevant, and other clinical factors. The indication and monitoring are individualized and governed by professional prescribing standards. NICE (2025).
Depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, ADHD, or substance use problems may need simultaneous care or initial stabilization. The objective is integrated treatment in which gambling-related decisions, psychiatric symptoms, interpersonal safety, and financial pressures are addressed together when indicated. Medication prescribed for a co-occurring disorder should not be represented as an established medication treatment for gambling disorder. Clinicians should also assess medications associated with impulse-control changes where relevant. NICE (2025).
Practical financial protection and reduced exposure
Clinical treatment is strengthened by practical measures that reduce gambling opportunities and protect essential funds. Options include gambling self-exclusion, bank gambling-payment blocks where available, removal of gambling applications, limits on access to payment methods, reduced exposure to marketing, and collaborative budgeting or debt advice. These measures should be tailored to the person's level of risk, technology use, and financial autonomy. A bank block can reduce certain transactions but cannot guarantee protection across all operators or payment channels. Lancet Commission (2024)00167-1) and NICE (2025).
Plans involving another person's control over finances require informed consent and attention to the possibility of financial abuse. Financial safety should increase the affected woman's autonomy, not place her under coercive supervision. Where urgent debt, housing, food, or childcare problems exist, treatment services should connect clients with appropriate social and financial support. NICE (2025).
Family support, peer support, and relapse prevention
Peer support can offer recognition and social connection; formal evaluation of different peer formats remains less developed than evidence for gambling-focused CBT. Family involvement may help when relationships are safe and participation is voluntary. Relatives and other affected people can require their own support, including assistance with finances, emotional distress, and boundaries. Services should separate supportive participation from exposure to intimidation, threats, or coercion. NICE (2025).
Relapse prevention identifies emotional triggers, advertising exposure, high-risk environments, early warning signs, and concrete routes back to care. Returning to gambling after an improvement can intensify shame and distress; a response plan should make rapid help accessible. Recovery outcomes include changes in gambling severity, financial stability, psychological health, relationships, safety, and functioning. Long-term success cannot be inferred from immediate improvement alone. NICE (2025).
Women, Suicide Risk, and Immediate Safety
Gambling-related harms are associated with suicidal thoughts, attempts, and deaths. The relationship is clinically serious and does not depend on a person first receiving a formal gambling-disorder diagnosis. Severe financial losses, shame, relationship breakdown, psychiatric symptoms, and acute crises can converge. NICE recommends directly assessing suicidal thoughts and intent in people experiencing gambling-related harm, with urgent specialist or emergency referral when risk is considerable or immediate. A safety plan and follow-up are essential where risk is identified. NICE (2025).
An elevated population-level association does not establish that gambling directly caused an individual's suicidal crisis, nor does it justify assigning a fixed level of suicide risk to women as a group. Each person requires a direct assessment of intent, plan, means, protective factors, current safety, and available support. If someone is in immediate danger, seek local emergency services or an urgent mental health crisis team now. Financial distress and gambling problems can be discussed alongside immediate safety without blame. WHO (2024) and NICE (2025).
Prevention Beyond Individual Responsibility
Women encounter gambling in commercial environments designed to recruit and retain customers. The product's speed, convenience, frequency of outcomes, continuous access, promotions, and advertising contribute to risk exposure. Prevention therefore includes public-health and regulatory approaches in addition to information and individual self-control. The Lancet Commission recommends measures affecting product availability, marketing, affordability, and universal consumer protections. Wardle et al. (2024)00167-1).
Prevention efforts need to reach the products and social spaces actually used by different groups of women. Messages that depict gambling disorder only as a young man's sports-betting problem can make women less likely to recognize their own difficulties. Research-informed prevention should avoid shame-based imagery, represent diverse experiences, and make routes to confidential care recognizable. McCarthy et al. (2019) and Fannin et al. (2024).
What the Research Establishes and What Remains Uncertain
Established evidence supports the clinical recognition of gambling disorder, the possibility of major psychological and financial harm at different levels of gambling severity, and the importance of addressing gambling with structured assessment and treatment. Population reviews commonly find higher problem-gambling prevalence among men, while women clearly experience substantial harm and face recognizable access barriers. Gambling-focused CBT has evidence of short-term efficacy, and national clinical guidance recommends stigma-sensitive, individualized treatment. APA, WHO, NICE, and Cowlishaw et al. (2022).
Preliminary or limited evidence concerns specific women-only prevention programs, the comparative effects of women-tailored therapies, long-term retention and relapse after treatment, gender-diverse populations, and intervention outcomes across socioeconomic and cultural groups. The 2026 systematic review found only 18 eligible female-specific intervention studies, illustrating the restricted quantitative evidence base despite substantial public-health need. Monreal-Bartolomé et al. (2026).
Contested interpretations include the idea of uniformly faster female progression to disorder, simple claims that women gamble primarily to escape while men gamble for excitement, and attempts to infer biological causes from binary survey comparisons. Treatment samples are selected subsets; cross-sectional correlations cannot establish whether gambling caused distress or followed it; retrospective age-of-onset reports can be inaccurate; and product markets change faster than many cohorts can track. Future interpretations of existing evidence must account for those methodological differences. Slutske et al. (2015) and Gartner et al. (2022).
Practical Questions and Answers
Can women have gambling disorder without gambling every day?
Yes. Clinical assessment concerns the persistent or recurrent pattern, impaired control, diagnostic symptoms, and meaningful distress or impairment. Episodes can occur in bursts, including periods of intense online play or repeated attempts to recover losses. Daily frequency alone does not establish or rule out the diagnosis. American Psychiatric Association.
Are online slot machines and bingo less concerning than sports betting?
The relevant risk depends on product characteristics and individual experience rather than a cultural assumption about who plays a particular game. Rapid-repeat electronic games and online casinos can expose people to frequent opportunities to stake money. Every gambling product deserves assessment when it produces loss of control or harm. WHO (2024).
Is trauma a necessary explanation for gambling disorder in women?
No. Trauma and intimate partner violence can be important in some women's histories, while others have different motivations and risk pathways. Assessment should invite disclosure of trauma and safeguarding concerns without presuming their presence or treating them as a prerequisite for diagnosis. Hing et al. (2023).
Do women need a different kind of gambling treatment?
The core evidence supports gambling-specific psychological treatment such as CBT. The delivery may need adaptation for privacy, safety, gender-specific group preferences, practical scheduling, caregiving, trauma, and co-occurring needs. Research has not established one universal female-specific treatment protocol superior for all women. NICE (2025) and Monreal-Bartolomé et al. (2026).
What is a useful first step when gambling feels out of control?
A confidential conversation with a healthcare professional or specialist gambling service can establish the degree of risk, possible diagnosis, current safety, and immediate support needs. The person can also protect access to essential money, use recognized self-exclusion or payment-blocking tools where available, and identify a safe supporter. Severe psychological distress, suicidal thoughts, or coercive violence call for urgent professional safety assessment. NICE (2025).
Related Articles
Cluster Gambling, Gaming and Behavioral Addictions — the scientific chapter connecting recognized disorders, gambling harms, mechanisms, treatment evidence, and prevention.
Gambling Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment — the clinical diagnostic criteria, assessment process, and established treatment approaches that also apply to women.
Gambling Reward Psychology: Near Misses, Loss Chasing, and Illusion of Control — learning mechanisms and cognitive distortions relevant to harmful gambling behavior.
Online Gambling Addiction: Risks, Signs, and Recovery — online exposure, indicators of harm, and routes toward recovery.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). Gambling disorder. Official APA patient and family resource.
Cowlishaw, S., Merkouris, S., Dowling, N., Anderson, C., Jackson, A., and Thomas, S. (2022). Psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008937.pub2.
Fannin, M., Collard, S., and Davies, S. (2024). Power, intersectionality and stigma: Informing a gender- and spatially-sensitive public health approach to women and gambling in Great Britain. Health and Place, 86, 103186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103186.
Gartner, C., Bickl, A., Härtl, S., Loy, J. K., and Häffner, L. (2022). Differences in problem and pathological gambling: A narrative review considering sex and gender. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2022.00019.
Grant, J. E., et al. (2012). Telescoping phenomenon in pathological gambling: Association with gender and comorbidities. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. PubMed: 23124186.
Hing, N., Mainey, L., O'Mullan, C., Nuske, E., Greer, N., Thomas, A., and Breen, H. (2023). Seeking solace in gambling: The cycle of gambling and intimate partner violence against women who gamble. Journal of Gambling Studies, 39, 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-022-10134-6.
McCarthy, S., Thomas, S. L., Bellringer, M. E., and Cassidy, R. (2019). Women and gambling-related harm: A narrative literature review and implications for research, policy, and practice. Harm Reduction Journal, 16, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0284-8.
Monreal-Bartolomé, A., Cabrera-Gil, I., Royuela-Colomer, E., Mateo-Canedo, C., Beltrán-Ruiz, M., Pérez-Aranda, A., Sanabria-Mazo, J. P., and López-Del-Hoyo, Y. (2026). Gambling in women: A systematic review of interventions and prevention approaches. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 15(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2025.00487.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2025). Gambling-related harms: Identification, assessment and management (NG248). Official NICE guideline.
Quigley, L. (2022). Gambling disorder and stigma: Opportunities for treatment and prevention. Current Addiction Reports, 9, 410–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-022-00437-4.
Slutske, W. S., Piasecki, T. M., Deutsch, A. R., Statham, D. J., and Martin, N. G. (2015). Telescoping and gender differences in the time course of disordered gambling: Evidence from a general population sample. Addiction, 110, 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12717.
Wardle, H., Degenhardt, L., Marionneau, V., et al. (2024). The Lancet Public Health Commission on gambling. The Lancet Public Health, 9(11), e950–e994. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00167-100167-1).
World Health Organization. (2024). Gambling. Official WHO fact sheet.
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Addictive behaviour. Official WHO classification overview.