Benchmarking gambling screens to health-state utility: the PGSI and the SGHS estimate similar levels of population gambling-harm

Table 3 Burden of harm estimates by PGSI and SGHS categories

	PGSI	Prevalence in Victorian gamblers	SF-6D utility weight (Current study, comorbidity controlled)	SF-6D utility weight [31]	Aggregate impact (DALYs)	Implied proportion of total population impact
PGSI	LR (1-2)	9.7%	−.005 ns	−.030	2874	14.6%
	MR (3-7)	3.5%	−.050*	−.057*	10,372	52.6%
	PG (8+)	1.1%	−.099*	−.181*	6454	32.8%
TOTAL		14.3%			19,700	100%
SGHS	Low (1-2)	7.1%	−.020*		8416	42.2%
	Moderate (3-5)	1.6%	−.061*		5784	29.0%
	High (6-10)	0.9%	−.108*		5761	28.8%
TOTAL		9.6%			19,961	100%

Note: Weights from Moayeri [31] provided for comparison only, and not used for subsequent calculations. SF-6D decrement (or disability) weights were sourced from Table 2 above, and control for other variables. Prevalence figures for the PGSI & SGHS in the Victorian community were sourced from Rockloff et al. [13], based on respondents who gambled in the last 12 months. Aggregate based on population of Victorian adults from census data: 5,926,624 x prevalence x SF-6D decrement, to form an estimate of per-year, disability adjusted life years (DALYs)

ISSN: 1471-2458