ArticleJournal of gambling studies2026
A Balancing Act: How Affected Others Support Themselves and Those Who Gamble.
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gambling-related harm affects not only the individual who gambles, but also their families, friends, and the wider community, referred to as affected others (AOs). AOs experience substantial harms across financial, relational, and psychological domains, yet remain underrepresented in treatment settings. Emerging evidence indicates that AOs have dual needs: support to manage their own gambling-related harm and guidance on how to support the person who gambles. However, these needs are underexplored, particularly beyond intimate partners. To address these gaps, this study asked two research questions: (1) what strategies do AOs use to reduce gambling-related harm, and (2) do these strategies differ by relationship type. A secondary analysis of 44 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with partners, family members, friends, and colleagues was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes described how AOs navigated gambling-related harm within this dual-needs framework: Holding it together (protecting wellbeing by talking to others, seeking professional support, setting boundaries, and creating distance); Pushing for change (trying to influence gambling behaviour by restricting access to shared finances, setting spending limits, and encouraging help-seeking); and Different needs, limited options (a desire for practical, skill-based supports alongside barriers to access). Across themes, partners tended to use more direct strategies such as ultimatums and financial controls, whereas non-partners more often adopted indirect, advisory or supportive roles. These relational differences suggest that interventions should be tailored to relationship type and explicitly build AO-focused support, so that available resources align with how AOs are actually managing gambling-related harm rather than treating AOs as a uniform group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42287591What 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.