Gordon Moody offers Tier 4 treatment for harmful gambling. This poster will look at the differences between male and female harmful gamblers who apply for treatment with Gordon Moody between 2015 and 2022, and consider how treatment should reflect these differences.

An opportunity sample (n = 3,241) are analysed and discussed. Data are anonymised and men and women will be compared for: mental health diagnosis; years spent gambling; methods of gambling; average monthly amount spent gambling; and job/relationship loss due to gambling. Statistical tests are run to ascertain whether any differences are significant.

Initial analysis found that on average females applying for treatment (n = 769) start gambling at 25.2 years old, and began gambling in a problematic way at 31.8 years old. In contrast, men (n = 2,472) began gambling on average at 17.5 years old, and began gambling in a harmful way at 22.7 years old. Younger women were more likely to gamble online (i.e. online casinos; online games), whilst older women preferred gaming machines in bingo halls, bookmakers, casinos or adult entertainment centres. Men were most likely to gamble at bookmakers, which does not differ with age. On average, men estimated that they spend nearly £2,000 a month before applying for treatment (£1,980), whilst women estimated that they spend 15% less (£1,680). 14.8% of women and 58.5% of men had lost a job due to harmful gambling. 49.2% of women and 69.1% of men had lost relationships due to harmful gambling. These data will be further analysed in SPSS to ascertain any significant differences.

Men and women tend to gamble in different ways, and therefore treatment may need to be tailored for each sex. The poster will discuss differences implemented by Gordon Moody to account for sex differences. Whilst women tend to begin gambling at an older age, it still takes a similar length of time for at-risk people to develop harmful gambling practices. Women are less likely to lose jobs and/or relationships due to harmful gambling practices before they seek treatment. Key limitations of the study include the opportunistic nature of the sample, the different sample sizes, and the fact that there are insufficient applicants who identify as transgender/non-binary/other to include in analysis.