Gambling disorder affects a minority of adults, while gambling-related harm reaches a much wider population. The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 1.2% of the world's adults have gambling disorder. A major 2024 systematic review estimated that 1.41% of adults were engaging in problematic gambling, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.06% to 1.84%. These figures describe different measurement constructs and should be interpreted as complementary indicators of population burden rather than interchangeable diagnostic prevalence rates. World Health Organization, 2024; Tran et al., 2024.
Prevalence also differs substantially across populations and research designs. Sex and age, access to commercial gambling, socioeconomic circumstances, the gambling products studied, whether researchers assess the entire population or only people who gamble, and the wording and administration of questionnaires all change the estimates. A defensible answer to how common gambling disorder is must therefore identify who was studied, which outcome was measured, which period was covered, and how the case was defined.
What Does Prevalence Mean in Gambling Research?
Prevalence is the proportion of people in a defined population who meet a specified condition during a specified period. For gambling research, investigators may report past-year gambling participation, any gambling-related risk, a high score on a problem-gambling questionnaire, a probable gambling disorder, or a disorder established by structured clinical assessment. These indicators occupy different places in the epidemiological picture.
A past-year prevalence of 1% among all adults means roughly one person in every 100 adults met that study's case definition during the preceding year. A prevalence of 1% among past-year gamblers has a different denominator: it means one person in every 100 who gambled, rather than one person in every 100 residents. Consequently, identical numerical percentages can represent quite different public-health situations.
Gambling Disorder as a Clinical Diagnosis
Gambling disorder is a recognized mental disorder characterized by a persistent or recurrent problematic pattern of gambling associated with clinically significant impairment or distress. The DSM-5-TR places it within substance-related and addictive disorders, while ICD-11 recognizes gambling disorder among disorders due to addictive behaviors. A diagnostic assessment evaluates multiple criteria, symptom patterns, functional consequences, context, and possible explanations involving other conditions. World Health Organization, 2024; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
A population survey that reproduces a list of diagnostic questions can estimate probable cases, but an affirmative screen does not perform the full clinical work of an individual assessment. In particular, a questionnaire may not adequately establish whether gambling occurred in the context of a manic episode, whether impairment is clinically significant, or whether a respondent interpreted a question as the investigator intended.
Problem Gambling, At-Risk Gambling, and Gambling-Related Harm
Problem gambling describes a pattern of gambling associated with elevated problems, loss of control, or harmful consequences, and is frequently operationalized through the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The PGSI scores nine questions about behaviors and consequences; common categories are 0, 1–2, 3–7, and 8 or more. The highest group is generally labeled problem gambling in survey reports. These categories are useful for surveillance and assistance planning, but a PGSI score of 8 or more is not a DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis. Gambling Commission, 2025 survey report.
Gambling-related harm includes financial strain, relationship disruption, psychological distress, neglected responsibilities, and effects on people close to the gambler. Harm can appear below the threshold of any formal disorder. The public-health burden therefore exceeds the number of clinical cases, and clinical service planning needs information about both diagnoses and harms. Wardle et al., 2024; NICE NG248, 2025.
How Common Is Gambling Disorder Worldwide?
The WHO's 2024 gambling fact sheet gives an approximate global adult gambling-disorder estimate of 1.2%. This is a synthesis-level population statement, not a census of professionally diagnosed patients, and should be read with the WHO's warning that globally standardized estimation of gambling harms remains limited. The same source reports that approximately 5.5% of women and 11.9% of men experience some degree of gambling harm or risk, a broader outcome than gambling disorder. WHO, 2024.
The largest recent quantitative synthesis, published by Tran and colleagues in The Lancet Public Health in 2024, systematically searched research available through March 4, 2024. The review identified 380 representative unique samples from 68 countries and territories; 366 samples contributed to its meta-analysis. Its global adult estimate was 1.41% for problematic gambling (95% confidence interval 1.06–1.84%) and 8.7% for any risk gambling (95% confidence interval 6.6–11.3%). These estimates combined studies using more than one definition and screening instrument. Tran et al., 2024.
These numbers establish that harmful gambling constitutes a substantial population-level concern. They do not imply that exactly 1.41% of all adults would receive a clinical diagnosis if every person were individually interviewed under a single standardized diagnostic protocol. The review's authors reported pronounced variation in measures and greater availability of studies from high-income settings, which limits geographical and diagnostic precision.
Gambling Participation Is Much More Common Than Disorder
Tran and colleagues estimated that 46.2% of adults worldwide gambled during the previous 12 months, with a 95% confidence interval of 41.7–50.8%. Past-year participation is therefore common, whereas problematic gambling affects a much smaller share of the adult population. The distance between these indicators matters: a gambling participation statistic cannot be presented as a measure of addiction. Tran et al., 2024.
Participation alone also captures widely different activities. Buying an occasional lottery ticket, placing repeated sports bets, and using rapid-cycle online slots all count as gambling in many surveys, but they differ in frequency, reinforcement schedules, expenditure, availability, and potential exposure to harm. Epidemiology becomes more informative when participation and problem indicators are broken down by product and intensity.
What a Confidence Interval Tells Us
The 95% confidence interval surrounding an estimate summarizes sampling and modeling uncertainty under the assumptions of the method. The interval around 1.41% is not a promise that the true prevalence in each country falls between 1.06% and 1.84%; it pertains to the pooled global estimate constructed from the analyzed evidence. Between-study heterogeneity, selection bias, nonresponse, instrument differences, and countries without usable data create additional sources of uncertainty that may not be captured by a single numerical interval.
Population estimates are sensitive to the quality of the evidence assembled. A large meta-analysis can reduce some forms of random uncertainty while retaining systematic differences in how studies were designed and whom they reached. The best epidemiological interpretation reports both the estimate and the conditions under which it was produced.
How Prevalence Differs Between Countries and Regions
There is no scientifically defensible universal ranking of countries based on a mixture of unrelated surveys. National figures vary with survey year, legal gambling markets, questionnaire choice, age eligibility, interview mode, response rates, and the denominator being reported. A lower measured percentage can reflect less disorder, different gambling exposure, or a less sensitive means of observing the same underlying behaviors.
Tran and colleagues constructed country-level estimates and then population-weighted regional and global syntheses, but the underlying national sample availability was uneven. Regional comparisons should therefore be made within the same study design wherever possible, with attention to uncertainty and differences in gambling markets. Tran et al., 2024.
Great Britain: New National Gambling Survey Estimates
The Gambling Survey for Great Britain's 2025 annual report, released July 16, 2026, estimated that 2.4% of adults aged 18 and older had a PGSI score of 8 or more, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.9–2.8%. Among people who had gambled in the previous 12 months, 4.0% scored 8 or more. These are explicitly PGSI estimates and are not equivalent to clinically diagnosed gambling-disorder prevalence. Gambling Commission, annual report 2025.
Among all adult survey participants in the same report, 7.8% scored 1–2 on the PGSI and 3.5% scored 3–7. Reporting only the highest category conceals the wider distribution of symptoms and vulnerability. Reporting all nonzero scores as gambling disorder would, conversely, greatly distort the size of the clinically diagnosable population.
The 2024 survey's corresponding estimate was 2.7% with PGSI 8 or more. The two years belong to the same modern survey series, yet even comparisons between them need confidence intervals and attention to methodological revisions. The regulator specifically warns against treating the new survey estimates as directly comparable with earlier differently administered national surveys. Gambling Commission, annual report 2024; Gambling Commission, statistics guidance.
United States: Historical Diagnostic Estimates and Their Limits
US findings demonstrate how diagnostic rules affect prevalence. A study comparing DSM-IV and DSM-5 classification within a national epidemiological data set reported that the estimated general-population rate rose from approximately 0.16% under DSM-IV to 0.27% under DSM-5 rules when the threshold was changed. The result illustrates a classification effect within an older survey; it must not be described as the current 2026 prevalence of gambling disorder in the United States. Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnoses.
US prevalence studies use different age ranges, time windows, sampling procedures, and definitions such as pathological gambling, problem gambling, and DSM gambling disorder. The availability of legal online or mobile betting has also changed over time. Historical estimates provide valuable benchmarks but cannot, without a methodologically compatible contemporary survey, establish how much national disorder prevalence has risen or fallen.
Canada: Why the Denominator Matters
Statistics Canada's analysis of the 2018 Canadian Community Health Survey reported that 64.5% of Canadians aged 15 and older had gambled during the preceding year. Among past-year gamblers, 1.6% scored in the moderate-to-severe gambling-risk group on the Canadian Problem Gambling Index. That second percentage pertains to people who gambled, includes more than one level of risk, and is not the prevalence of clinically diagnosed disorder among all Canadians. Rotermann and Gilmour, 2022.
Because the Canadian data were gathered in 2018, they also preceded later regulatory changes and important shifts in online betting availability. The figures remain useful for understanding prevalence methods and denominators while carrying a clear historical date.
Population Differences: Sex and Gender
Across many population-based studies, men have greater measured gambling participation and a higher burden of harmful gambling than women. The 2024 global review estimated past-year gambling participation at 49.1% among men and 37.4% among women. WHO's broader risk statistics likewise indicate higher levels of some gambling harm among men. These are population-level observations and do not determine the risk of an individual person. Tran et al., 2024; WHO, 2024.
In Great Britain's 2025 survey, among respondents who gambled in the previous year, 5.3% of men and 2.7% of women scored 8 or more on the PGSI. Comparisons should be interpreted alongside gambling involvement, product choice, exposure, and differences in willingness to disclose financial or behavioral problems. Gambling Commission, 2025.
Sex Differences Do Not Describe Every Gambling Product
The profile of participation varies by gambling type and setting. The Canadian national study found higher participation among men in sports betting and casino table games, whereas some other gambling activities were more common among women. Researchers who collapse all formats into a single indicator lose information about the products and commercial conditions associated with harm. Rotermann and Gilmour, 2022.
Surveys must also distinguish sex recorded for statistical purposes from gender identity and social experience. Many historical samples offer only a male/female classification, and some underrepresent gender-diverse populations. Findings for those groups should be reported according to the actual sample and measures used, with caution about broad generalization.
Age Differences and Young Adults
Younger adults frequently exhibit higher scores on problem-gambling measures than older adults, although patterns differ by product, country, and cohort. In the 2025 Great Britain survey, among those who had gambled within the past 12 months, 10.4% of respondents aged 18–24 scored 8 or more on the PGSI compared with 0.8% of those aged 75 and older. These figures are percentages of gamblers in each age group, not percentages of everyone at those ages. Gambling Commission, 2025.
Differences by age may reflect development, social transitions, available income, marketing exposure, preferred products, and cohort-specific gambling environments. Cross-sectional differences between age groups cannot by themselves show whether the same people will recover as they age. Longitudinal studies are needed to distinguish aging effects from changes in generations and commercial markets.
Adolescents: Participation Does Not Establish Disorder
The 2024 global review estimated that 17.9% of adolescents had gambled in the past 12 months, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.8–21.2%. This statistic concerns participation, including an activity that may be illegal for minors in many jurisdictions. The authors found too little representative evidence to calculate a dependable global prevalence of problematic gambling among adolescents. Tran et al., 2024.
Adolescent studies vary especially strongly in whether gambling includes informal bets, lottery products, online wagering, or other stake-based activities. Some use adult-derived questionnaires with modified wording. Reports of severe gambling problems in small or regional adolescent samples should never be generalized to all adolescents worldwide without a representative denominator and comparable diagnostic threshold.
Age-sensitive prevention can address financial literacy, the reinforcement properties of betting, marketing exposure, family practices, and access restrictions. Recognition of vulnerability should be paired with developmentally appropriate assessment rather than treating every young person who gambles as having a clinical disorder.
Socioeconomic Position, Deprivation, and Financial Vulnerability
Social and economic disadvantage can be linked to greater gambling-related harm, even when gambling participation itself is not highest in the same groups. In Great Britain's 2025 survey, 4.5% of adults living in the most deprived areas of England scored 8 or more on the PGSI, compared with 1.2% of adults in the least deprived areas. These are within-survey comparisons and refer to survey-defined area deprivation, not proof that low income causes a gambling disorder. Gambling Commission, 2025.
A comparable financial loss may be tolerable for one household and catastrophic for another. Measures of gambling behavior and measures of harm therefore need to account for income, debt, dependents, access to credit, and the security of basic expenses. Relative affordability and household exposure help explain why diagnostic caseness and harm severity do not coincide perfectly.
A systematic review of gambling-disorder risk factors identified links with demographic circumstances, educational disadvantage, financial struggles, and living arrangements, but observed associations need careful interpretation. Income insecurity can precede gambling harm, follow from it, or participate in a reciprocal process. Risk Factors for Gambling Disorder: A Systematic Review, 2023.
Mental Health, Comorbidity, and Differential Diagnosis
Studies of people with gambling disorder report substantial co-occurrence with substance use, mood, anxiety, and other psychiatric conditions. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based research found high psychiatric comorbidity in samples identified as having gambling disorder, while also emphasizing variations in instruments, criteria, and the relatively small number of eligible studies. Co-occurrence does not specify which condition developed first or whether either caused the other. Psychiatric morbidity and gambling disorder, 2025.
Comorbidity affects how a population estimate should be interpreted. A screening tool can produce overlapping symptoms among people with depression, impulsivity, substance-related conditions, or episodic mood disturbance. A full assessment asks whether gambling-related loss of control and impairment form an enduring disorder, including differential evaluation of manic episodes. For people reporting severe consequences, clinical care may be appropriate before diagnostic uncertainty is resolved.
Clinical Samples Are Not Population Samples
People attending treatment tend to have more severe symptoms and more complex co-occurring difficulties than people identified by community surveys. The prevalence of depression or substance use within a treatment clinic cannot be projected to everyone with gambling problems, and the percentage of clinic attendees with gambling disorder cannot estimate its prevalence in the wider population. Research needs clearly labeled sampling frames and independent comparison groups.
Conversely, community surveys can miss people with unstable housing, severe debt, restricted access to survey technology, or limited willingness to disclose stigmatized behavior. These gaps complicate the mapping between measured prevalence, clinical need, and actual service use.
Does Online Gambling Change the Numbers?
Online gambling expands access across locations and times of day, and certain products permit rapid sequences of bets and losses. The Lancet Public Health 2024 meta-analysis estimated problematic-gambling prevalence at 15.8% (95% confidence interval 10.7–21.6%) among adults participating in online casino or slots gambling. This activity-specific percentage cannot be represented as prevalence among all adults or proof that online play alone causes gambling disorder. Tran et al., 2024.
People selecting online casino or slots gambling may already differ from other gamblers in frequency, expenditure, motivations, access, and preexisting vulnerability. Observational studies cannot fully separate product effects from such selection. Nevertheless, elevated problem indicators within some high-intensity product groups are directly relevant to prevention and regulation.
Sports Betting and Mobile Availability
Mobile sports wagering permits repeated engagement during events, live-odds checking, and exposure to marketing tied to sports fandom. Researchers should measure betting type, frequency, losses, deposits, promotional incentives, and transitions between products rather than treat all online gambling as a uniform category. A growth in the number of accounts or bets is evidence of expanded exposure, not direct evidence of a parallel rise in clinical disorder.
The 2024 Lancet Public Health Commission argues for population-wide protections addressing products, promotion, availability, and commercial practices. Its public-health framing is important because changes to the environment affect the conditions under which harmful gambling may develop, even when causal effects on diagnostic prevalence remain difficult to quantify. Wardle et al., 2024.
How Researchers Measure Gambling Disorder Prevalence
Four decisions shape almost every reported prevalence figure: the case definition, the instrument, the reference period, and the population denominator. A fifth decision—the mode and coverage of data collection—can shift estimates even if the same questionnaire is used.
Screening Instruments and Cutoff Scores
The PGSI and the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) are widely used instruments for assessing gambling-related problems. A threshold transforms a continuous score into a group label for research or triage. Different thresholds change the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity. A positive screen indicates that further inquiry may be warranted; it is not a confirmed psychiatric diagnosis. NICE NG248 recommends validated assessment instruments in appropriate services while integrating them with clinical history, harm assessment, and individual needs. NICE, 2025.
Older studies sometimes use DSM-IV pathological-gambling thresholds, while newer studies use DSM-5 or ICD-11 concepts. Diagnostic systems vary in wording and threshold, and their application can change observed caseness. The historical US DSM comparison found that modifying diagnostic rules raised the estimated number of cases even without changing the population's actual gambling behavior. DSM diagnostic concordance study.
Past-Year, Lifetime, and Current Prevalence
Past-year prevalence asks whether a case definition was met during the preceding 12 months. Lifetime prevalence asks whether it was met at any point in a person's life. Point prevalence concerns a specified moment or short reference period. These estimates address different questions and should be labeled in every graph, table, and article.
Lifetime estimates usually reflect a longer opportunity to experience a condition, but their accuracy also depends on retrospective memory and respondents' understanding of former symptoms. Past-year estimates can change because of real behavioral shifts or changes in reporting. Researchers must preserve the reference period when interpreting historical trends.
All Adults Versus Only People Who Gamble
A population rate among adults includes non-gamblers in the denominator. A conditional rate among past-year gamblers does not. For example, Great Britain's 2025 report shows 2.4% PGSI 8 or more among all adults and 4.0% among past-year gamblers. The difference follows partly from population definitions, rather than indicating that one survey found twice the disorder burden of another. Gambling Commission, 2025.
Comparisons may become still more misleading when one study samples online bettors, another samples casino visitors, and a third samples households regardless of gambling. Conditional prevalence among a high-exposure group is useful for targeted prevention but does not replace a representative estimate for the general population.
Survey Mode, Disclosure, and Nonresponse
The Gambling Commission's methodological guidance states that its modern push-to-web survey produces PGSI estimates different from traditional interviewer-administered studies. Subsequent research found that some of the difference may reflect downward reporting bias during interviewer administration. The regulator also cautions against comparing new and old survey series as if the sampling and mode were equivalent. Gambling Commission, guidance on using statistics.
Anonymous questionnaires may facilitate disclosure of stigmatized financial behavior, while online collection can systematically underrepresent people with poor digital access or low response propensity. Telephone, in-person, household, and web modes each have strengths and potential selection mechanisms. Survey weighting addresses known discrepancies but cannot necessarily repair every unmeasured form of bias.
Missing Countries, Small Groups, and Heterogeneity
Global syntheses can be dominated by the countries with the most studies. The 2024 meta-analysis included countries from multiple regions but reported especially substantial evidence from high-income countries. Some countries and demographic subgroups remain sparsely represented, and available adolescent problematic-gambling data were too limited for a reliable global estimate. Tran et al., 2024.
Heterogeneity is substantively meaningful. Survey dates, availability of gambling products, diagnostic classifications, instrument versions, legal frameworks, languages, and sampling practices all differ. Researchers should present subgroup results and sensitivity analyses rather than assuming that a single pooled percentage describes every setting equally well.
Can Gambling Disorder Prevalence Be Said to Be Increasing?
An increase in advertising, online betting volume, commercial revenue, or the number of gamblers does not automatically demonstrate an increase in diagnosable gambling disorder. Establishing a trend requires comparable repeated population samples, consistent case definitions, and attention to confidence intervals, nonresponse, and contextual changes.
Differences between old face-to-face surveys and new online surveys can be measurement artifacts. National surveillance should identify any discontinuity when changing instruments or survey designs, retain reproducible weighting and documentation, and be explicit about uncertainty. The regulator for Great Britain characterizes its recent annual survey series as a new baseline for exactly this reason. Gambling Commission, annual report 2024.
Well-designed longitudinal studies can track individual onset, persistence, remission, and recurrence, while repeated cross-sectional surveys can monitor changes in population prevalence. The two designs answer different questions. A cross-sectional study documents association and distribution at one time; it cannot by itself explain the cause of a population trend.
Why Disorder Prevalence Understates the Burden of Gambling
Population harm extends to people who do not meet diagnostic criteria and to individuals affected by someone else's gambling. A person may face acute debt, housing insecurity, relationship rupture, or psychological distress before a formal diagnostic threshold is reached. Partners and children may suffer financial and emotional consequences without themselves gambling. WHO, 2024; Wardle et al., 2024.
The WHO identifies financial distress, relationship breakdown, violence, and suicide-related outcomes among serious gambling harms. These effects require separate measurement rather than extrapolation from the percentage who screen positive for gambling disorder. Researchers can estimate affected others, harms, and service needs alongside clinical prevalence, while avoiding the assumption that all harms have a single causal explanation.
Suicide Risk Requires Careful Clinical Interpretation
Gambling disorder and severe gambling-related harms are associated with increased suicidal thoughts and behavior in observational evidence. WHO and NICE treat this association as an important clinical and public-health concern. Yet a population association is not an individual prediction, and studies must consider co-occurring depression, substance use, financial crisis, and other determinants. WHO, 2024; NICE, 2025.
Someone experiencing gambling-related distress, escalating debt, or thoughts of suicide warrants timely, compassionate clinical assessment, irrespective of whether a screening cutoff has been reached. Immediate danger calls for local emergency services or an urgent crisis-care pathway. Suicide risk should be evaluated directly and personally, rather than inferred from a statistical group label.
What Population Differences Mean for Prevention and Services
Public-health monitoring should distinguish universal population protection from responses designed for higher-risk groups. Where evidence shows elevated PGSI scores among younger adults or particular gambling-product users, services can offer accessible screening, confidential support, and clinically indicated treatment. For households facing harm, family and financial safeguarding may be relevant even without a confirmed disorder in the person who gambles.
NICE NG248 recommends proactively identifying gambling-related harms, conducting assessment based on gambling history and consequences, and directing people to suitable support or treatment. Its recommendations are organized around harm and clinical need, rather than requiring everyone to carry a formal gambling-disorder diagnosis before assistance is available. NICE, 2025.
At the population level, regulators can track advertising exposure, product accessibility, affordability, and the distribution of harms across income and age groups. Evaluating protective measures requires research designed to test their outcomes; correlations between policy changes and subsequent prevalence do not alone establish causation.
A Framework for Reading Gambling Prevalence Figures
When reviewing any headline prevalence claim, first identify whether the estimate concerns clinical disorder, probable disorder, PGSI problem gambling, any level of risk, simple participation, or adverse consequences. Next establish the denominator and reference period. Then inspect the study design, geographic coverage, age limits, response rates, confidence intervals, weighting, and whether comparable studies used the same case definition.
A strong synthesis also shows what remains unmeasured. Relevant omissions may include people without stable addresses, online-gambling subgroups, adolescents, culturally diverse respondents, and those unwilling to disclose experiences. Distinguishing established distributions from uncertain causal explanations enables prevention and treatment decisions to reflect the actual evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What percentage of adults have gambling disorder?
WHO estimates that approximately 1.2% of adults globally have gambling disorder. A 2024 meta-analysis estimated 1.41% of adults engaged in problematic gambling, but that meta-analytic outcome covers mixed survey definitions and cannot be equated exactly with clinical diagnosis. Geographic, temporal, and methodological differences remain substantial. WHO, 2024; Tran et al., 2024.
Is gambling disorder more common among men?
Many population surveys find higher problematic-gambling indicators among men. The 2025 Great Britain report found a PGSI score of 8 or more among 5.3% of male past-year gamblers and 2.7% of female past-year gamblers. These estimates describe conditional screened risk, not clinical diagnoses, and individual experience varies widely. Gambling Commission, 2025.
Are young adults at higher risk than older adults?
Some national studies find markedly higher high-risk PGSI scores in younger gamblers. The 2025 Great Britain report shows 10.4% among gamblers aged 18–24 compared with 0.8% among gamblers aged 75 and older. These are associations within a specific survey and do not by themselves demonstrate a developmental cause. Gambling Commission, 2025.
Does a high PGSI score mean someone has gambling disorder?
A high PGSI score indicates substantial gambling-related problems under the survey's scoring framework. A formal diagnosis requires a clinical evaluation applying recognized criteria and assessing distress, impairment, and context. Screening instruments help identify people who may benefit from assessment and support. NICE, 2025.
Can we compare gambling prevalence across countries?
Comparisons are strongest when the populations, periods, instruments, diagnostic definitions, survey modes, and weighting are compatible. An estimate among online-slot users and a clinical estimate among all adults address different questions. Global pooled estimates offer perspective on the burden while retaining methodological uncertainty.
Is online gambling more strongly associated with problems?
The 2024 systematic review reported particularly elevated problematic-gambling prevalence among adults participating in online casino or slots gambling. The observed association is relevant to prevention; it does not establish that every online product has the same risk or that product use alone causes a psychiatric disorder. Tran et al., 2024.
Related Articles
Gambling Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment examines recognized diagnostic criteria, clinical presentation, assessment, and care in depth.
Gambling Disorder Screening: PGSI, SOGS, and Clinical Assessment explains what screening tools measure and how their results relate to diagnostic interviews.
Behavioral Addictions: Recognized Diagnoses and Scientific Debate places gambling disorder within the current clinical classification of behavioral addictions.
Cluster Gambling, Gaming and Behavioral Addictions connects the epidemiology of gambling with mechanisms, treatment, digital platforms, and other scientific topics across the research cluster.
References
Concordance between gambling disorder diagnoses in the DSM-IV and DSM-5: Results from the National Epidemiological Survey of Alcohol and Related Disorders. (2015). PubMed Central full text.
Gambling Commission. (2025). Gambling Survey for Great Britain: Annual report 2024, official statistics. Official report.
Gambling Commission. (2026). Gambling Survey for Great Britain: Annual report 2025, consequences from gambling. Official report.
Gambling Commission. (2025–2026). Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain. Official guidance.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2025). Gambling-related harms: Identification, assessment and management. NICE guideline NG248. Official clinical guideline.
Psychiatric morbidity and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys. (2025). PubMed Central full text.
Risk Factors for Gambling Disorder: A Systematic Review. (2023). PubMed Central full text.
Rotermann, M., and Gilmour, H. (2022). Who gambles and who experiences gambling problems in Canada. Statistics Canada, Insights on Canadian Society. Official statistics.
Tran, L. T., Wardle, H., Colledge-Frisby, S., et al. (2024). The prevalence of gambling and problematic gambling: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 9, e594–e613. DOI.
Wardle, H., Degenhardt, L., Marionneau, V., et al. (2024). The Lancet Public Health Commission on gambling. The Lancet Public Health. DOI.
World Health Organization. (2024). Gambling. Official fact sheet.