support@assignmentexperts.co.uk + 44 7340 9595 39
(2) Notifications
Flat 50% OFF on Every Order
Promo Code: FLAT50Chat GPT & Paraphrasing Tool
My Account

Custom-Written, AI & Plagiarism-Free with Passing "Guaranteed"

UK Based Company
Company Registration# 11483120
Address: International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, E16 2DQ.

Evaluating the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms

Assignment Brief

Critically analyse and evaluate a particular chosen public health policy

You should use the following:

Also look at past and related strategies as well and how they fit with this current one. in terms of how and why it was developed, its impact in terms of meeting the public health of the intended target population(young people aged 11-16 year olde.) and how your chosen policy can be improved to better help the population it targets (2,500 words)

Introduction (suggested 100 words)

Briefly outline what policy and associated issues you are going to discuss in the essay.

Background (sources and evidence must be cited) (suggested 600 words)

  • Explain key concepts (definition) e.g. policy, policy process/cycle, policy analysis, policy evaluation, any others Some of these could be discussed later e.g. evaluation could be discussed later when evaluation of the policy or its interventions is discussed

  • Discuss the importance of the public health topic and key (epidemiological) statistics on the public health topic

  • The value of a healthy public policy/health in all policies approach in informing the policy process and thereby improving individual, family, community and population health and wellbeing

Body of Essay/Main Section (sources and evidence must be cited) (suggested 1650 words)

Describe briefly, then analyse and evaluate some or all of the following aspects:

  • History of policy in the topic area and how it has evolved over time and why it has evolved in the way that it has

  • What social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental factors have influenced how the policy has been developed. Explain and analyse why these factors influence the policy in the way they did

  • What are the policy vision, aim and objectives

  • What population does it target and why

  • The key elements of the policy, the key programmes and interventions, how does the policy think these programmes and interventions will improve population health

  • Based on your wider reading of the literature, are the programmes and interventions included in the policy appropriate from a public health perspective. Are there any gaps in the policy 

  • What key stakeholders were involved in the policy process (developing, implementing and operating).

  • Why they were involved. What influence did they have and why did they have the influence that they did. Think about the power/influence and importance/interest i.e. do a stakeholder mapping

  • If you cannot find information on stakeholders, then discuss the stakeholders that are likely to have been involved, why they would have been involved, what their likely influence could have been and why (your reasons should be explained in detail).

  • Does the policy address health equity and inequalities issues. How does it do this. Why it does it do so in the way that it does. If no, then why does it not address equity and/or inequalities and what are the public health implications of this.

  • How is the policy being implemented and put into operation.

  • OPTIONAL: Identify or develop a logic model of the policy and how policy objectives relate to, for example, policy actions, outputs, impacts and outcomes

  • What do any existing evaluations tell us about the effectiveness of the policy: process, outputs/impacts and outcomes.

  • Was the policy evaluated i.e. is there an evaluation report, if so, what were its key findings and what were the reasons for the successes or failures of the policy.

  • Is there any policy analysis research looking at the overall policy, if so what were the criticisms of the policy analysis research e.g. criticisms of the policy and how it could be improved from academics and researchers.

  • Is there any epidemiological research evidence on the interventions inside the policy, if so, what were the overall findings of this intervention research e.g. systematic or other literature reviews, on randomised controlled trials or before and after cross sectional studies, on the effectiveness of the interventions included in the policy.

  • If there is no evaluation information, what kinds of evaluation could be undertaken to evaluate the impact of the policy and what process, outputs, impacts and outcomes could be monitored

Conclusion (suggested 150 words)

Wrap up your discussion with some thoughts about:

  • What you think are the ways that the policy could be modified to improve the effectiveness of the policy in achieving its stated vision, aim and objectives and in further improving population health and wellbeing.

  • What based on your academic reading, do you judge to be the future trends in how the policy might change over time because of social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental factors and changes in the stakeholders and their power.

  • What should policymakers do to better evaluate the policy in terms of its effectiveness in improving population health and wellbeing.

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
tailored to your instructions

paypal checkout

The services provided by Assignment Experts UK are 100% original and custom written. We never use any paraphrasing tool, any software to generate content for e.g. Chat GPT and all other content writing tools. We ensure that the work produced by our writers is self-written and 100% plagiarism-free.

Discover more


International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120


100% Pass Guaranteed

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

Recent Papers

Sample Answer

Evaluating the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms

Introduction

Gambling has increasingly become a public health concern in the UK, particularly among young people aged 11–16. Early exposure to gambling behaviours can lead to long-term harms including addiction, mental health issues, and social or academic difficulties. The UK Gambling Commission’s National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms aims to mitigate these risks through prevention, intervention, and treatment programmes. This essay critically analyses the development, implementation, and effectiveness of the strategy, with a particular focus on its impact on youth populations. It evaluates key policy components, stakeholder involvement, equity considerations, and potential improvements to better protect young people from gambling-related harms.

Background

Policy and Public Health Concepts

A policy is a deliberate plan of action designed to guide decisions and achieve specific outcomes (Dye, 2016). In public health, policies aim to improve population health by addressing risk factors, promoting healthy behaviours, and reducing inequalities. The policy process typically follows a cycle: problem identification, policy formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation, and revision (Walt & Gilson, 1994). Policy analysis examines the design, context, and effects of policies, while policy evaluation assesses whether objectives have been met and how interventions impact target populations (Buse et al., 2012).

The National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms represents a public health policy that incorporates both prevention and harm reduction measures. It aligns with the Health in All Policies approach, recognising that factors outside the health sector—such as education, industry regulation, and social services—affect health outcomes (Kickbusch et al., 2013).

Gambling as a Public Health Concern

Gambling among adolescents is linked to multiple health and social risks. Problem gambling in young people is associated with increased anxiety, depression, and poor academic performance (Calado & Griffiths, 2016). Research indicates that 11–16-year-olds are particularly vulnerable, with studies showing that approximately 9% of UK adolescents have gambled in the past week and 0.5–1% exhibiting signs of problem gambling (Wardle et al., 2019). Early exposure is a strong predictor of later gambling addiction and risky financial behaviours (Gainsbury et al., 2014).

The social consequences extend beyond the individual, affecting families, peer networks, and communities. Gambling harms can exacerbate inequalities, disproportionately affecting children from lower socio-economic backgrounds who may have limited access to preventive education and support services (Wardle et al., 2019).

Importance of Healthy Public Policy Approaches

Healthy public policy principles emphasise the use of evidence-based interventions, multisectoral collaboration, and equity-focused strategies. By integrating gambling harm reduction into broader social, educational, and regulatory frameworks, policies can reduce both individual and population-level harms (Kickbusch et al., 2013). In practice, this means combining education campaigns in schools, regulation of gambling advertising, and targeted support for vulnerable youth.

Historical Context and Evolution

Previous UK strategies have gradually shifted from a focus on regulation and industry compliance toward a public health orientation. Early interventions, such as the 2005 Gambling Act, prioritised consumer protection and fairness in gambling markets. By 2013, the National Responsible Gambling Strategy emphasised education, treatment, and research, particularly for at-risk populations. Over time, emerging evidence on youth gambling and online platforms prompted the 2020–2023 strategy to incorporate digital-age considerations, stricter age verification, and a stronger focus on harm reduction for young people (Gambling Commission, 2023a).

This evolution reflects broader social, technological, and political changes. The rise of online gambling apps, the normalisation of gambling in media, and increasing public concern over youth exposure have driven policy adaptation. Policymakers have also sought to balance industry revenue with public health imperatives, illustrating the complex interplay between economic and social considerations in shaping the policy landscape (Gainsbury et al., 2014).

Epidemiological Evidence Supporting Policy

Evidence suggests that interventions such as school-based education programmes, parental guidance, and public awareness campaigns can reduce youth gambling participation and improve knowledge of risks (Calado & Griffiths, 2016). Despite this, systematic reviews highlight gaps in evaluation, particularly in longitudinal studies tracking behaviour change over time. The National Strategy aims to address these gaps by promoting research and evaluation alongside regulatory and educational measures.

Young people are at higher risk of developing gambling problems early. Targeting this age group aims to prevent long-term harm and promote healthier behaviours before habits form.

Use government websites, peer-reviewed journals, and public health reports. Check Gambling Commission publications, systematic reviews, and academic studies on youth gambling interventions.

Yes. You can use gaps identified in the literature, stakeholder analysis, and epidemiological evidence to recommend changes that could enhance effectiveness and equity.

It’s highly recommended. Even if official info isn’t available, hypothesise likely stakeholders, explain their influence, and justify your reasoning based on power and interest.

Oliver Bennett

Writing about the National Strategy helped me understand how public health policies target real-world problems.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Ethan Houghsie

The essay brief was clear, and I found using official Gambling Commission reports really useful.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Alice Connor

Focusing on youth gambling opened my eyes to how much early exposure can affect long-term health.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Tom Robinson

I appreciated being able to discuss policy improvements even where evaluation data was limited.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
✍️ Post Your Review
We're Open