ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2022
Validating the short gambling harm screen against external benchmarks.
Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gambling Harms Statistically Mediate the Association between Risk-weighted Gambling Involvement and Wellbeing in a Population-representative Sample.Journal of gambling studies · 2026Article
- Measuring gambling harm in self-reported questionnaires: a scoping review.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
- Laboratory-induced extended wakefulness impairs mood and vigilance but not gambling behaviour in regular gamblers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Harm-to-self from gambling: A national study of Australian adults.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2024Article
- Validation of the 7-Item Domain-General Gambling Harm Scale (DGHS-7).Addictive behaviors reports · 2023Article
- Benchmarking gambling screens to health-state utility: the PGSI and the SGHS estimate similar levels of population gambling-harm.BMC public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: The Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS) is currently the most frequently applied dedicated measure of gambling-related harm (GRH), though concerns relating to scale validity have been expressed. The current study aimed to address criticisms that several SGHS items do not depict genuine harms that may occur as a result of gambling, causing the scale to overestimate harm. Specifically, we aimed to test convergence between the SGHS and its constituent items with: (1) wellbeing, and (2) psychological distress. Methods: To test criterion validity of both the scale and the items, retrospective analyses of survey data from 2,704 Australian adults (36% non-gamblers; 64% gamblers) were conducted. Subjective wellbeing and psychological distress scores, captured using the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and the Kessler-6 Psychological Distress Scale (K6), respectively, were used as external (non-gambling) benchmarks. A total of 428 (16%) respondents scored at least 1 on the SGHS. Results: Monotonic decreases and increases, corresponding to poorer personal wellbeing and higher psychological distress, were found with each additional SGHS score increase. Gamblers endorsing a single SGHS item reported lower wellbeing and higher psychological distress than both non-gamblers and gamblers who scored zero on the SGHS. Discussion and conclusion: These results show that the SGHS is a valid measure of GRH and contradict suggestions that low scores on the SGHS do not indicate true harm. The SGHS represents a valid and innovative short screening tool to measure GRH in population prevalence studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.