Skip to main content

Evaluation Publications

GambleAware’s evaluation process is how we build the evidence for what really works to minimise gambling harm. Our methodology is based on industry best practice, governed by a standard protocol applied to everything we commission.

Findings from our commissioned evaluation projects can be filtered by theme using the drop down menu below

Scottish Gambling Education Hub Evaluation
IFF Research

In June 2020, GambleAware commissioned IFF Research to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Hub. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the effectiveness and early outcomes of the Hub and to inform GambleAware's future commissioning decisions for a Hub approach in England and Wales.

Evaluation of the Gambling Support Service, England & Wales (GSSE&W)
Kantar Public

The Gambling Support Service in England & Wales was delivered by local Citizens Advice offices in 12 regions across the two nations between October 2018 and March 2021. GambleAware commissioned Kantar Public to conduct an independent process and impact evaluation to capture outcomes and learnings from GSSE&W delivery and to improve the programme for future iterations, including the commissioning of a similar programme through the constitutionally distinct organisation, Citizens Advice Scotland. The evaluation report contains details of facilitators and barriers which contributed to the success and outcomes of the service. The report also identifies opportunities to aid further future success of the programme. The evaluation was conducted between July 2020 and April 2021.

Safer Gambling Messaging (phase II) - An Impact Evaluation
C. Jacob, C. Larkin & J. Lawrence

Messaging has an important role to play in reducing gambling harm. Safer gambling messaging comprises, for example, advertisements that appear on television, or notifications that appear on-screen when logged into an online gambling platform. Recent evidence indicates that a generic warning label approach may not be effective , and consequently a more individualised, operator-led approach might have more impact. However, much of the evidence is from laboratory studies or experiments conducted away from the environments in which people would normally gamble and there are some questions about how well the evidence might generalise to a more natural setting. This impact evaluation aims to complement existing research by examining safer gambling messaging as implemented by gambling operators on their customers in live play.

Safer Gambling Messaging Project evaluation (phase II) - A Process Evaluation
L. Crouch, E. Collerton & M. Bernard

A summative process evaluation of phase two of the Safer Gambling Messaging Project was conducted to understand how the project was implemented, and the factors that influenced its effectiveness. The process evaluation aims to complement the findings from the impact evaluation. Part one of the process evaluation involved exploring the co-creation process, including the perceptions and experiences of the process of operators co-designing the messaging interventions with Revealing Reality, and to identify any factors that influenced the efficiency of this process. The second part of the process evaluation focused on the implementation of interventions, including the barriers and facilitators to intervention design and delivery, and factors influencing how well it was perceived to have worked.

An Evaluation of the GambleAware-Funded Treatment System (GAFTS). Phase One Report: Exemplar gambling treatment system framework design
J. Morgan, A. Bond, J. Farrell, J. Myers, J. Riley.

This report covers Phase One of a two-phase programme commissioned by GambleAware and delivered by Leeds Beckett University. The overall programme
aim is to deliver an objective, independent evaluation of the current GambleAware funded treatment and support system. This a system-level evaluation not an impact evaluation of system components or services.

Process and Impact Evaluation of the Multi-Operator Self-Exclusion Schemes - Baseline report (Evaluation Phase 1)
Ipsos MORI

The key aim of the evaluation is to explore how far Multiple-Operator Self-Exclusion Schemes have led to the desired changes in levels of awareness and to explore perceptions and delivery arrangements of the schemes. It also aims to highlight any unanticipated barriers to the achievement of the self-exclusion objectives that might form the focus of future policy improvements.