There is substantial heterogeneity in how public health interventions intended to prevent or reduce gambling-related harms - including policy and legal interventions - are evaluated for their effectiveness. To accurately inform policy and practice on the comparative effectiveness of such interventions, standardisation is required. The aim of this study is to establish consensus on a core outcome set (COS) that is to be used when evaluating the effects of these interventions.
Professor Paul Montgomery-Marks, University of Birmingham (Work Package Lead)
Theodore Piper, University of Birmingham
Illin Gani, University of Birmingham
Michelle Fisher, University of Birmingham
Ameeta Retzer, University of Birmingham
Priyanka Sharma, University of Birmingham
Lucille Kelsall-Knight, University of Birmingham
Professor Kate Bedford, University of Birmingham (Co-PI)
Professor Joht Singh Chandan, University of Oxford (Co-PI)
Disease Category: Public health
Disease Name: Gambling-related harms (including gambling addiction)
Age Range: 18 - 120
Sex: Either
Nature of Intervention: Other
- Charities
- Clinical experts
- Consumers (patients)
- Policy makers
- Regulatory agency representatives
- Researchers
- COS for clinical trials or clinical research
- Consensus meeting
- Delphi process
- Focus group(s)
- Literature review
- Nominal group technique (NGT)
We propose a four-stage study: (1) preparation work, (2) focus groups, (3) Delphi surveys and (4) consensus meeting. First, an initial list of outcomes has been generated through two reviews and a mapping of UK datasets of gambling and associated harms. Second, focus groups have been conducted with (1) individuals with lived experience of gambling harm, (2) public health interventions providers, (3) academics and researchers, (4) policy makers and (5) members of the public. Third, this list of outcomes will be prioritised through a two-round online Delphi survey using a predefined consensus criterion. Finally, a consensus meeting will be held to agree on the final COS.