Gambling Health: The Conversation Ontario Therapists Are Not Having
Ontario has run a fully regulated private online gambling market since April 2022. In June 2026 alone, licensed operators in this province accepted roughly $9.46 billion in wagers from about 1.32 million active player accounts (iGaming Ontario, 2026). That is not a niche activity. It is a mass-participation behaviour with a documented harm profile, and it is almost certainly present on your caseload right now.
Most of us are not asking about it.
This post introduces a term we think the field needs: Gambling Health. It is a deliberate parallel to Substance Use Health, and it exists to solve the same problem that term was built to solve, which is that a whole domain of human behaviour gets collapsed into its most severe presentation, and everything short of that presentation becomes clinically invisible.
What We Mean by Gambling Health
The public health literature on gambling is well developed. The idea that gambling harm sits on a continuum rather than a binary is not new (Langham et al., 2016; Wardle et al., 2024). What has been missing is a clean, stigma-free, clinician-facing term for the domain itself.
Consider how the language already works elsewhere. Physical health is understood as a spectrum. Nobody assumes that "physical health" means "cardiac arrest." Mental health is understood the same way. And in 2022, the Community Addictions Peer Support Association introduced Substance Use Health precisely because substance use had become a synonym for addiction, which framed all use as an acute disorder that it is not (CAPSA, 2022). CAPSA laid out a spectrum running from no use, through beneficial and lower-risk use, to problems occurring, to a diagnosable substance use disorder.
Gambling has no equivalent term. We have "problem gambling," which is a label for the far end of the distribution. We have "responsible gambling," which is industry-authored, individualizing, and largely a compliance construct. Neither describes the domain. Both describe a judgment about the person.
Gambling Health is the domain. It refers to a person's overall relationship with gambling and betting products, including whether they gamble at all, how they gamble, what it costs them financially and relationally, what it does for them, and what it is doing to them. Like physical health and mental health, it exists in every client whether or not they gamble, and it can be assessed without presuming pathology.
The Gambling Health Continuum
Adapting CAPSA's spectrum model and the harms taxonomy developed by Langham and colleagues (2016), Gambling Health can be described across five positions:
No gambling. The person does not gamble. This is still a Gambling Health status, and it is worth noting when a client is an affected other, meaning someone harmed by another person's gambling.
Beneficial gambling. Gambling that produces positive social or psychological effects. The office hockey pool. The annual casino trip with siblings. Social poker. The activity is contained, budgeted, and socially embedded.
Lower-risk gambling. Gambling with negligible health or social consequences. Money spent is money the person planned to spend and does not need. No chasing, no concealment, no displacement of other activities.
Problems occurring. Gambling that is producing consequences for the individual, their family, or their community. Financial strain, arguments, secrecy, lost sleep, time displacement, mood consequences after losses, borrowing. This is the position most clinicians miss, and it matters more than the next one for reasons we will come to.
Gambling disorder. A diagnosable condition under the DSM-5-TR, classified alongside substance-related disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2022)
The clinical value of the continuum is that it gives you somewhere to put a client who is not in trouble yet but is moving. It also gives you language that does not require a client to accept a label before they can accept help.
Why Ontario, and Why Now
The evidence from this province is now specific rather than theoretical.
A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in March 2026 examined more than 745,000 contacts to ConnexOntario, Ontario's free 24-hour mental health and addictions helpline, from January 2012 to September 2025 (Forrest et al., 2026). Just over 37,000 of those contacts were gambling related.
The findings are difficult to read as anything other than a signal. Gambling-related contacts per million Ontarians were stable at 13.4 per month before the launch of PlayOLG in 2015, rose to 17.0 after it, and reached 26.2 after the private market opened in April 2022 (Forrest et al., 2026). Over the same post-privatization period, total monthly wagers rose 654 percent, from $1.08 billion in April 2022 to $8.1 billion by August 2025, which works out to a shift from roughly $84 to roughly $634 wagered per month for every Ontario resident. Active player accounts per 100,000 people aged 15 and older rose 239 percent.
Three quarters of gambling-related helpline contacts after April 2022 concerned online gambling specifically.
Why Young Men
The increases were not distributed evenly. They were almost entirely concentrated in boys and men aged 15 to 44 (Forrest et al., 2026).
Among boys and young men aged 15 to 24, the mean monthly rate of gambling-related helpline contacts rose from 13.8 to 57.4 per million, an increase of roughly 317 percent. For men aged 25 to 44 the increase was about 108 percent. Rates among women did not meaningfully change. During the private market period, boys and men aged 15 to 44 accounted for 60 percent of all gambling-related contacts, 70 percent of online gambling contacts, and 89 percent of sports betting contacts.
Two things are driving this, and both are worth understanding clinically.
The first is product design. Single-event sports betting, legalized federally in 2021, brought with it in-play and micro-betting, which allow a person to wager repeatedly during a game, sometimes every few seconds. The features associated with harm across all gambling formats are speed of play, short event duration, variable stake size, ease of access, and continuous availability, and in-play betting maximizes all five. In-play bettors show demographic and psychological profiles associated with elevated gambling-related harm (Vieira et al., 2023). The relevant contrast is not casino versus sportsbook. It is one bet on a Sunday afternoon versus four hundred bets across the same three hours.
The second is marketing. There is consistent evidence of a dose-response relationship between gambling advertising exposure and more favourable gambling attitudes, intention to gamble, and actual gambling behaviour (McGrane et al., 2023). Ontario's advertising volume since 2022 has been substantial, and the demographic being addressed is not ambiguous.
A young man in Ontario in 2026 is living inside a saturated commercial environment that has been engineered to convert his existing interest in sports into a continuous transactional relationship with a betting product. He does not experience this as gambling. He experiences it as being a fan.
Most Harm Is Not in the Disordered Group
This is the finding that should change your intake practice.
Statistics Canada data indicate that about 1.6 percent of past-year gamblers are at moderate or severe risk of gambling disorder (Rotermann & Gilmour, 2022). If you screen only for that group, you will conclude that gambling is a rare problem and not worth routine inquiry.
That conclusion is wrong, and the reason is the prevention paradox. Browne and Rockloff (2018) examined 72 distinct gambling harms across four risk categories and found that the majority of harms, including serious ones such as relationship breakdown, job loss, needing emergency financial assistance, and selling personal possessions, occurred more commonly among lower-risk gamblers than among those meeting problem gambling criteria. Not because those individuals are harmed more severely, but because there are vastly more of them. Research in Massachusetts replicated this pattern, with roughly three quarters of total reported gambling harms coming from low-risk gamblers.
Harm from gambling is not restricted to people with a gambling disorder (Langham et al., 2016). It also extends past the person who gambles, to partners, children, parents, and employers. In the ConnexOntario data, nearly 22 percent of gambling-related contacts came from family members rather than from the person gambling (Forrest et al., 2026).
The clinical translation is straightforward. If you wait until a client meets diagnostic threshold before you take gambling seriously, you will miss most of the harm walking through your door.
Why It Stays Invisible in the Therapy Room
Gambling has no breath, no dilated pupils, no track marks, no smell. There is no functional impairment visible in session. A person can lose their entire savings on a phone under the table during a family dinner and nobody notices.
Add to that the shame profile. Gambling losses are experienced as evidence of stupidity rather than illness, which is a much harder thing to disclose. And the cultural framing of sports betting as fandom means many clients do not classify their behaviour as gambling at all
Then there is us. Screening for gambling in general health and mental health settings is rare (National Council on Problem Gambling, 2026), and most people with gambling problems never present for care. Only a small proportion of individuals experiencing gambling harm seek treatment (Suurvali et al., 2008). Gambling also carries high psychiatric comorbidity, with elevated rates of substance use, mood, and anxiety disorders (Lorains et al., 2011), which means the gambling frequently sits underneath a presentation we have already named something else.
If we do not ask, we do not find out. That is the whole mechanism.
How to Ask, and What to Ask
Here is the practical section. The tools are brief, validated, free, and take under two minutes
Start with a normalizing frame
The wording of the opening matters more than the instrument. Something like:
"I ask everyone a few questions about gambling and betting, the same way I ask about alcohol and sleep. Most people do some form of it, so this is not a loaded question."
Or, for a client who has mentioned sports:
"A lot of people who follow sports closely have some kind of betting app now. Is that part of it for you?"
Note the second one avoids the word gambling entirely, which is often the difference between a yes and a no.
Then screen
Lie/Bet Questionnaire (Johnson et al., 1997). Two items, designed to rule out rather than rule in:
Have you ever felt the need to bet more and more money?
Have you ever had to lie to people important to you about how much you gamble?
A yes to either indicates further assessment.
Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (Gebauer et al., 2010). Three items covering restlessness or irritability when trying to cut down, concealment from family, and financial reliance on others because of gambling losses. Reported sensitivity of 0.96 and specificity of 0.99 for gambling disorder. Any single yes warrants a fuller evaluation.
NODS-CLiP (Toce-Gerstein et al., 2009). Three items covering loss of Control, Lying, and Preoccupation. Strong performance for detecting both problem and moderate-risk gambling.
Problem Gambling Severity Index (Ferris & Wynne, 2001). Nine items, Canadian-developed, scored 0 to 27. This is the reference standard in Canadian practice and the one to use when a brief screen comes back positive. Scores of 1 to 2 indicate low risk, 3 to 7 moderate risk, and 8 or higher indicates problem gambling.
If your goal is to catch anything on the continuum, including low risk, the very short instruments will not do it well. A systematic review of brief screens found that the two- and three-item tools detect problem and moderate-risk gambling adequately but miss low-risk gambling, and that longer brief instruments perform better across the full range (Dowling et al., 2019). This is exactly the Gambling Health argument in psychometric form. The tools we default to are built to find disorder, and the continuum is where most of the harm is.
Ask about the things a screen will not catch
Product type. Sports betting, in-play or micro-betting, online slots, table games, lottery, crypto and stock trading, loot boxes. In-play betting and online slots carry the steepest risk gradients.
Money. Not "how much do you gamble" but "what did last month look like." Ask about borrowing, credit, payday loans, and money moved from accounts a partner does not see.
Time and displacement. What has gambling replaced?
Chasing. "What do you do after a bad night?"
Affected others. If the client is not the person gambling, they are still a client with a Gambling Health issue.
Suicidality. Gambling harm carries elevated suicide risk, and sudden financial catastrophe is an acute risk period. If gambling is present alongside significant debt, assess risk directly and follow your usual safety planning process.
Then respond proportionately
A client at the lower-risk end does not need a treatment plan. They may need one honest reflection and a limit-setting conversation. A client with problems occurring may benefit from motivational interviewing, financial harm reduction, self-exclusion, app deletion, and involvement of a partner. A client meeting criteria for gambling disorder needs specialist referral.
ConnexOntario (1-866-531-2600) provides free, confidential, 24-hour information and referral for gambling, mental health, and substance use across the province, and it is the single most-used first point of contact for gambling problems in Ontario.
What This Means for Clinical Supervisors
Supervisors sit at the leverage point here, because a screening practice that is not modelled in supervision does not survive contact with a full caseload.
Three concrete moves.
Make it a standing case review question. Not "is there a gambling issue," which invites a no. Instead: "What is this client's Gambling Health?" The framing forces an answer other than not applicable, and it surfaces the supervisee's own assumptions about who gambles.
Audit the intake package. Most intake forms in Ontario private practice ask about alcohol, cannabis, and other substances, and say nothing about gambling. That omission is a clinical decision, whether or not anyone made it deliberately. Two items cost nothing.
Name the competence gap honestly. Very few Ontario psychotherapists received meaningful gambling content in graduate training. Under CRPO's standards, working outside your competence is a professional issue, not a personal one, and supervision is the appropriate place to identify it and plan for it. A supervisee whose caseload includes several young men in a province with a $9 billion monthly betting handle has a training need, and the responsible response is to name it rather than absorb it.
If you are a supervisee who has never been asked about this, or a supervisor building it into your practice, this is exactly the kind of thing structured supervision is for. Our team at OntarioSupervision.ca works with clinicians across the province on precisely these blind spots.
Conclusion
Gambling is an underrecognized determinant of health (Forrest et al., 2026). Ontario has built one of the largest regulated online gambling markets in North America, and the population absorbing the resulting harm is young, male, and largely absent from our treatment data because it is not seeking treatment.
Calling this domain Gambling Health is not a rebranding exercise. It is a way of making a continuum visible so that clinicians stop waiting for a disorder before they start asking a question. Substance Use Health did this work for substances. Mental health did it a generation earlier. Gambling is overdue.
The next client you see who follows sports closely, has a phone, and is between 18 and 40 is a person whose Gambling Health you have almost certainly never assessed.
Ask
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Browne, M., & Rockloff, M. J. (2018). Prevalence of gambling-related harm provides evidence for the prevention paradox. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(2), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.41
Community Addictions Peer Support Association. (2022). Understanding substance use health: A matter of equity. CAPSA. https://capsa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CAPSA-Substance-Use-Health-EN-1.pdf
Dowling, N. A., Merkouris, S. S., Manning, V., Volberg, R., Lee, S. J., Rodda, S. N., & Lubman, D. I. (2019). The diagnostic accuracy of brief screening instruments for problem gambling: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101784
Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Forrest, R., Talarico, R., Waqar, A., & Myran, D. T. (2026). Help-seeking for gambling problems following expansion of Ontario's online gambling market and legalization of single-event sports betting. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 198(8), E281–E290. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.251894
Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371005500204
iGaming Ontario. (2026). Market performance reports. https://igamingontario.ca/en/market-performance
Johnson, E. E., Hamer, R., Nora, R. M., Tan, B., Eisenstein, N., & Engelhart, C. (1997). The Lie/Bet Questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers. Psychological Reports, 80(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.1.83
Langham, E., Thorne, H., Browne, M., Donaldson, P., Rose, J., & Rockloff, M. (2016). Understanding gambling related harm: A proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health, 16, 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2747-0
Lorains, F. K., Cowlishaw, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2011). Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: Systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addiction, 106(3), 490–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03300.x
McGrane, E., Wardle, H., Clowes, M., Blank, L., Pryce, R., Field, M., Sharpe, C., & Goyder, E. (2023). What is the evidence that advertising policies could have an impact on gambling-related harms? A systematic umbrella review of the literature. Public Health, 215, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2022.11.019
National Council on Problem Gambling. (2026). National survey finds widespread gambling participation before age 21 amid public concern about youth exposure risk. https://www.ncpgambling.org/news/survey-finds-widespread-gambling-participation-before-age-21/
Rotermann, M., & Gilmour, H. (2022). Who gambles and who experiences gambling problems in Canada. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2022001/article/00006-eng.htm
Suurvali, H., Hodgins, D., Toneatto, T., & Cunningham, J. (2008). Treatment seeking among Ontario problem gamblers: Results of a population survey. Psychiatric Services, 59(11), 1343–1346. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.59.11.1343
Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2009). The NODS-CLiP: A rapid screen for adult pathological and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(4), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-009-9135-y
Vieira, J. L., Coelho, S. G., Snaychuk, L. A., Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2023). Who makes in-play bets? Investigating the demographics, psychological characteristics, and gambling-related harms of in-play sports bettors. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 12(2), 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2023.00024
Wardle, H., Degenhardt, L., Marionneau, V., Reith, G., Livingstone, C., Sparrow, M., Tran, L. T., Biggar, B., Bunn, C., Farrell, M., Kesaite, V., Poznyak, V., Quan, J., Rehm, J., Rintoul, A., Sharma, M., Shiffman, J., Siste, K., Ukhova, D., … Saxena, S. (2024). The Lancet Public Health Commission on gambling. The Lancet Public Health, 9, e950–e994. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00167-1
