Qualitative research and gambling harms in GM

Transcript:Qualitative research and gambling harms in GM:
Qualitative research and gambling harms in GM Simon Watts, Public Health Registrar, July 2021 Introduction The Greater Manchester (GM) gambling harms programme wishes to understand existing qualitative evidence around gambling harms to inform delivered of the programme, with a view to commissioning research to fill knowledge gaps where there is a specific need and interest within GM. A qualitative review was carried out to inform this work and starts to address the following questions: What does the existing evidence tell us about gambling harms? What public health actions are supported by existing research? What are our research priorities and gaps? What, and how should we support development of new knowledge? Qualitative research and gambling harms in Greater Manchester – July 2021 Part 1 Qualitative research and gambling harms in Greater Manchester – July 2021 Methodology Approach and methodology Not intended to be a systematic review, but a rapid review of relevant literature to identify key findings and inform future research priorities: Phase 1 Phase 2 Part 1. Methodology Oversight and governance A GM “evidence working group” was established to discuss priorities and provide steer on development of evidence review and needs assessment. This group met on a bi-monthly / six-weekly basis with an agreed Terms of Reference. Membership included: GM-based public health specialist Local authority representatives (x2) GM gambling harms programme manager GMCA research principal GMCA head of public service reform OHID gambling programme lead Lived experience representatives from GamHive (x2) Part 1. Methodology Agreed priorities for qualitative review Understand how GM residents are impacted by gambling (gambler and affected others) Enhanced understanding of resident’s pathways into harmful gambling: when does harm begin and how does this change over someone’s journey, why? How do residents engage with treatment services? Perspectives on how support for gamblers and affected others could be improved; what are the barriers to accessing services? Why? Factors influencing recovery and / or abstinence Part 1. Methodology Purpose of qualitative evidence review To influence local authorities and other stakeholders on the issue To inform how we might prevent gambling harms To inform how we can improve signposting to support and the types of support that would work To inform how we can improve access to support To inform future research commissioning priorities Part 1. Methodology Part 2 Qualitative research and gambling harms in Greater Manchester – July 2021 What evidence is out there? Evidence reviewed (1/3) PHE /