2011 24 th November 2011 Introduction Introduction In 2010 Bluegrass Research undertook a piece of work on behalf of Balance which benchmarked alcoholrelated perceptions and levels of alcohol consumption amongst the North East population ID: 493010
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Balance Benchmarking" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Balance Benchmarking
201124th November 2011Slide2
Introduction
Slide3
Introduction
In 2010, Bluegrass Research undertook a piece of work, on behalf of Balance, which benchmarked alcohol-related perceptions and levels of alcohol consumption amongst the North East population The purpose of this work was to establish a method of tracking Balance’s performance in relation to its key targets of changing the region’s attitudes to alcohol and alcohol abuse, and reducing the amount of alcohol consumedIn 2011, a second wave of research was undertaken to measure progress against key performance indicatorsThis presentation outlines the findings from the 2011 Balance Benchmarking project, comparing them to the 2010 benchmarkSlide4
Methodology
Methodology used same as 2010: Face to face interviewing Interviews conducted across North East England91% of interviews conducted on-street; 9% door-to-doorData weighted to socio-demographic profile of North East population
A total of 2,388 interviews were undertakenSlide5
Alcohol ConsumptionSlide6
Regional Profile of Drinkers 2011
Non drinkers23%
Low risk drinkers
38
%
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
39
%
11% of non drinkers have stopped drinking in the past 12 months
No significant year on year changeSlide7
Key consumption measures
Frequency of consumptionNumber of standard drinks
Incidence of binging
No significant year on year changes
Patterns similar to 2010:
Younger
people and
men
drink in greater quantities in a day and binge more often Slide8
Regional Profile of Drinkers 2011
***
*
*
*
*
*
*Slide9
Drinking BehaviourSlide10
Drinking too much alcohol
% perceive drinking too much rarely / neverSignificant Change?
% perceive drinking too much regularly / occasionally
Significant Change?
34
%
No
66
%
No
8
%
No
92
%
No
60
%
No
40
%
No
Men
18-34 years
Gateshead
Women
55+
All drinkers
Low risk
Increasing / higher risk
Also higher
than average amongst:Slide11
Concern about amount of alcohol consumed
All drinkers% fairly / very concerned
Significant Change?
% not very / not at all concerned
Significant Change?
Low risk
Increasing / higher risk
92
%
No
8
%
No
98
%
+2
%
2
%
-2
%
86
%
No
14
%
No
Also higher
than average amongst:
Women
65+
SEG C2
Men
25-34 years
SEG E
GatesheadSlide12
Thinking about reducing amount of alcohol consumed
In the past 12 months, have you ever thought about reducing the amount of alcohol that you drink% yes 2011
Significant Change?
18
%
-8
%
Thinking about reducing HIGHER than average amongst:
Men
Gateshead
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
Those very or fairly concerned about their drinking
Those who regularly or occasionally drink too much
Thinking about reducing LOWER than average amongst:
Women
65+
SEG D
Stockton-on-Tees, South Tyneside
Low risk drinkers
Those not very or not at all concerned about their drinking
Those who rarely or never drink too muchSlide13
Thinking about reducing amount of alcohol consumed
In the past 12 months, have you ever thought about reducing the amount of alcohol that you drink% yes 2011
Significant Change?
18
%
-8
%
Decrease driven by shifts amongst:
25-54, 65+
Men & women
SEG: AB, C1, D
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley
Drinkers (low & increasing / higher risk)Slide14
Amount of alcohol consumed compared to 12 months ago
All drinkers% consuming less
Significant Change?
% consuming more
Significant Change?
Low risk
Increasing / higher risk
8
%
No
25
%
-6
%
4
%
No
23
%
-9
%
12
%
No
26
%
No
Also higher
than average amongst:
18-24 years
Gateshead
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
18-34 years
65+
Darlington
North TynesideSlide15
Amount of alcohol consumed compared to 12 months ago
All drinkers% consuming less
Significant Change?
% consuming more
Significant Change?
Low risk
Increasing / higher risk
8
%
No
25
%
-6
%
4
%
No
23
%
-9
%
12
%
No
26
%
No
Also higher
than average amongst:
18-24 years
Gateshead
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
65+
Darlington
North Tyneside
In both categories, those who:
Regularly / occasionally drink too much
Are very/fairly concerned about their alcohol consumption
Have thought about reducingSlide16
Pre-loading
How often, if at all, do you drink alcohol at home / at a friend's house, before going out to a bar or a club% yes 2011
Significant Change?
42
%
+6
%
Incidence of pre-loading HIGHER amongst
18-34
Middlesbrough, Newcastle
South Tyneside
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
Incidence of pre-loading LOWER amongst
45+
SEG E
Darlington, North Tyneside
Low risk drinkersSlide17
Pre-loading
How often, if at all, do you drink alcohol at home / at a friend's house, before going out to a bar or a club% yes 2011
Significant Change?
42
%
+6
%
Increase driven by shifts amongst:
18-24, 55-64
Men
SEG: C1, C2
Tyne & Wear
Increasing / higher risk drinkersSlide18
Non Drinkers who have given up in past 12 months
% had a conversation with a health professionalThe Influence of Health Professionals
All Drinkers
34
%
6
%
Did advice influence thinking about / reducing?
Influenced
....
Strongly: [13]
To some extent: [3]
A little: [0]
Not at all: [4]
Influenced
....
Strongly: 25%
To some extent: 24%
A little: 25%
Not at all: 27%
Base: Non drinkers who have given up in past 12 months (60) and have had a conversation (20)
Caution, small base
Base: All Drinkers (842) who have thought about reducing or who drink less and have had a conversation (81)
% whose drinking has reduced because of advice from health professionals
27
%
3
%Slide19
Profiling the NE Drinker SegmentSlide20
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011Perception of personal behaviour x concern
Don't drink too much / are concerned1%
Drink too much / are concerned
7
%
Drink too much / not concerned
27
%
Don't drink too much / not concerned
65
%
+3
%
-1
%
Significant year-on-year changes:Slide21
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011Perception of personal behaviour x thought of reducing
Don't drink too much / have not thought about reducing 61%
Drink too much / have not thought about reducing
21
%
Drink too much / have thought about reducing
13
%
Don't drink too much / have thought about reducing
5
%
+10
%
-7
%
Significant year-on-year changes:Slide22
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011Perception of personal behaviour x change in past 12 months
Don't drink too much / drink the same48%
Drink too much / drink the same
19
%
Drink too much / drink more
5
%
Don't drink too much / drink less
15
%
Drink too much / drink less
10
%
Don't drink too much / drink more
3
%
Y-O-Y
-5
%
Y-O-Y
+7
%Slide23
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011Perception of personal behaviour x thought of reducing
Concerned / have NOT thought of reducing1%
Concerned / have
thought of reducing
7
%
Not concerned / have not thought about reducing
80
%
+9
%
-8
%
Significant year-on-year changes:
Not concerned / have thought of reducing
12
%Slide24
Profiling the NE Drinker SegmentConcern x change in past 12 months
Not concerned / drink the same65%
Concerned / drink the same
3
%
Concerned / drink more
2
%
Not concerned / drink less
21
%
Concerned / drink less
3
%
Not concerned / drink more
6
%
Y-O-Y
-6
%
Y-O-Y
+5
%Slide25
Profiling the NE Drinker SegmentIntention x change in past 12 months
Have NOT thought about reducing / drink the same61%
Have thought about reducing / drink the same
7
%
Have thought about reducing / drink more
3
%
Have NOT thought about reducing / drink less
16
%
Have thought about reducing / drink less
9
%
Have NOT thought about reducing / drink more
5
%
Y-O-Y
-7
%
Y-O-Y
+7
%Slide26
Understanding Units & LimitsSlide27
Awareness of alcohol units
Aware of measuring alcohol in units% yes 2011
Significant Change?
91
%
No
Awareness HIGHER than average amongst:
SEG: AB, C1
Hartlepool
Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)
Awareness LOWER than average amongst:
65+
SEG E
Newcastle
South Tyneside
Non-drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide28
Keeping a check of units
Do you keep a check of how many units of alcohol you drink?% yes 2011
Significant Change?
15
%
-9
%
Monitoring units HIGHER than average amongst:
Women
SEG AB
Darlington
North Tyneside
Low risk drinkers
Monitoring units LOWER than average amongst:
Men
18-24
SEG D
Middlesbrough
Gateshead
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
All NE DrinkersSlide29
Keeping a check of units
Do you keep a check of how many units of alcohol you drink?% yes 2011
Significant Change?
15
%
-9
%
Decrease driven by shifts amongst:
55+
Men & women
SEG: C1, C2, D, E
Tyne & Wear; Tees Valley
Drinkers: low & increasing / higher risk
All NE DrinkersSlide30
Awareness of recommended maximum number of units
Aware that there is a recommended maximum number of units% aware 2011
Significant Change?
76
%
-7
%
Awareness HIGHER than average amongst:
35-44
SEG: AB, C1
Hartlepool
Northumberland
Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)
Awareness LOWER than average amongst:
65+
SEG: D, E
Redcar & Cleveland
Newcastle
Non-drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide31
Awareness that there is a recommended maximum number of units
Aware that there is a recommended maximum number of units% aware 2011
Significant Change?
76
%
-7
%
Decrease driven by shifts amongst:
18-24, 55+
Men & women
SEG: C2, D, E
Tyne & Wear
Drinkers (low risk)
Non drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide32
Understanding of recommended maximum number of units
Proportion of MEN who understand recommended daily limits% understand 2011
Significant Change?
43
%
No
Proportion of WOMEN who understand recommended daily limits
39
%
-6
%
OVERALL POPULATION
Proportion of MEN DRINKERS who understand recommended daily limits
46
%
No
Proportion of WOMEN DRINKERS who understand recommended daily limits
42
%
-7
%
DRINKERSSlide33
Minimum PricingSlide34
Attitudes to current prices for alcohol
Base: All respondents (2,388)65+ yearsSEG: AB
Non-drinkers
18-24 year olds
SEG: E
Drink 4+ days a week
S Tyneside
Northumberland
No significant year on year changesSlide35
Awareness of minimum pricing
Aware of Minimum Pricing% aware 2011
Significant Change?
45
%
No
Awareness HIGHER than average amongst:
Men
35 – 54
SEG: AB, C1
Darlington
Northumberland
Drinkers
Awareness LOWER than average amongst:
Women
18 – 34
SEG: D, E
Newcastle
South Tyneside
Non-drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide36
All NE Respondents Support for minimum pricing
% 2011
Significant Change?
Support Minimum Pricing
56
%
+7
%
Against Minimum Pricing
28
%
No
Support HIGHER than average amongst :
Women
SEG: AB
South Tyneside
Sunderland
Northumberland
Non-drinkers & low risk drinkers
Objection HIGHER than average amongst :
18-24 years
SEG: C2s
Stockton on Tees
Gateshead
Drinkers (increasing & higher risk)Slide37
Support for minimum pricing
% 2011Significant Change?
Support Minimum Pricing
56
%
+7
%
Against Minimum Pricing
28
%
No
Increase in support driven by shifts amongst:
25-44
Women
SEG: E
Northumberland
Tyne & Wear
Drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide38
All NE Respondents Minimum Pricing
% 2011
Significant Change?
Prepared to pay more for positive societal benefits
53
%
+6
%
NOT prepared to pay more for positive societal benefits
29
%
+4
%
Preparedness to pay more HIGHER than average amongst :
Women
55 – 64
SEG: AB
South Tyneside , Sunderland, Northumberland
Low risk drinkers
Supporters of minimum pricing
Not prepared to pay more HIGHER than average amongst :
Men
18-24
SEG E
Stockton on Tees, Darlington
Increasing & higher risk drinkers
Objectors to minimum pricingSlide39
All NE Respondents Minimum Pricing
% 2011
Significant Change?
Prepared to pay more for positive societal benefits
53
%
+6
%
NOT prepared to pay more for positive societal benefits
29
%
+4
%
Increase in support driven by shifts amongst
:
Women
SEG: C2,E
Tyne & Wear
Drinkers
Increase in objection driven by shifts amongst
:
Men
SEG: A,B
County Durham
Tees Valley Slide40
All NE Respondents
Effects of minimum pricing: impact on supportReduce alcohol related crime and violence
% 2011
Significant Change?
84
%
+7
%
Reduce drunk / rowdy behaviour
83
%
+6
%
Reduce amount under 18s drink
80
%
+6
%
Reduce cost of alcohol related burden to NHS
78
%
+7
%
Only penalised heavy drinkers who bought cheap alcohol
69
%
+4
%Slide41
Effects of minimum pricing Increases typically driven by:
Younger age groups (18-34)WomenC2DEs (most notably C2 & E)DrinkersNon-drinkers
Effects have greater influence amongst:
Women
Non drinkers
Low risk drinkers
Middlesbrough
Redcar & Cleveland
Supporters of minimum pricing
Effects have lower influence amongst
Men
Stockton on Tees
North Tyneside
Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)
Those neutral and objectors to minimum pricing Slide42
14% would drink less
86% would drink the sameEffects of minimum pricing on behaviour
If minimum pricing was introduced, do you think that you would drink more, less or the same as you drink now?
18-24 year olds
Es
Increasing/higher risk drinkers
Darlington
;
Hartlepool
Gateshead
;
Newcastle
All NE Respondents Slide43
Children & AlcoholSlide44
Alcohol Advertising & Children
Alcohol advertising currently targets the under 18s% agree 2011
Significant Change?
55
%
+10
%
HIGHER than average agreement amongst:
Older age groups – 55+
Women
Non drinkers
South Tyneside
LOWER than average agreement amongst:
Younger age groups (18-34)
Men
SEG: C1
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
Darlington; N Tyneside
All NE Respondents Slide45
Alcohol Advertising & Children
Alcohol advertising currently targets the under 18s% agree 2011
Significant Change?
55
%
+10
%
25-44, 55-64
Men & women
SEG groups (except C1s)
Tees Valley
Low risk drinkers & non-drinkers
Positive shifts in opinion evident amongst...
All NE Respondents Slide46
All NE Respondents
Alcohol Advertising & ChildrenThere should be a ban on alcohol advertising before 9pm
% agree 2011
Significant Change?
68
%
+3
%
HIGHER than average agreement amongst:
Women
Older age groups (55+)
SEG: E
County Durham
Non-drinkers
LOWER than average agreement amongst:
Men
Younger age groups (18-34)
Hartlepool
Stockton-on-Tees
North Tyneside
Drinkers
(Increasing / higher risk)Slide47
Alcohol Advertising & Children
There should be a ban on alcohol advertising before 9pm% agree 2011
Significant Change?
68
%
+3
%
Age groups: 18-34; 55-64
Women
SEG: C2, E
Northumberland
Tees Valley
Non-drinkers
Positive shifts in opinion evident amongst...
All NE Respondents Slide48
Giving alcohol to children
Proportion stating that children aged 13-15 should NEVER drink alcohol% 2011
Significant Change?
72
%
-5
%
More likely to agree:
65+
SEG: E
Darlington; Hartlepool;
Gateshead; South Tyneside
Non-drinkers
Lower risk drinkers
Less likely to agree:
18-24
SEG: AB,C1
County Durham; Stockton
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide49
Giving alcohol to children
Proportion stating that children aged 13-15 should NEVER drink alcohol% 2011
Significant Change?
72
%
-5
%
Negative shifts in opinion evident amongst...
18-24; 35-44
Men & women
SEG: C1, D
Tyne & Wear; Tees Valley
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide50
Giving alcohol to children
% 2011Significant Change?
Proportion stating that children aged 16-17 should NEVER drink alcohol
34
%
-7
%
More likely to agree:
Women
65+
SEG: E
Darlington; South Tyneside
Non-drinkers
Less likely to agree:
Men
18-24; 35-44
SEG: C1
Stockton
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide51
Giving alcohol to children
% 2011Significant Change?
Proportion stating that children aged 16-17 should NEVER drink alcohol
34
%
-7
%
Negative shifts in opinion evident amongst...
35-44; 55+
Men
SEG: AB,C1,C2
Tyne & Wear; Tees Valley
Lower & Increasing / higher risk drinkers
All NE Respondents Slide52
NormalisationSlide53
Drinking attitudes
Woman drinking bottle of wine when out with friends% acceptable 2011
Significant Change?
64
%
-4
%
2 couples sharing 3 bottles of wine when out for dinner
57
%
No
Man drinking 8 pints of lager/beer when out with friends
43
%
+5
%
Woman regularly drinking 2 glasses of wine 5 nights a week
39
%
+7
%
Drinking to get drunk
12
%
No
Man driving after drinking two pints lager/beer
5
%
-3
%
All NE Respondents Slide54
Drinking attitudes
Woman drinking bottle of wine when out with friends% acceptable 2011
Significant Change?
64
%
-4
%
Man driving after drinking two pints lager/beer
5
%
-3
%
Women
SEG: C1, E
County Durham
Tees Valley
Drinkers
(Low & Increasing / higher risk)
Shifts to lower levels of agreement seen amongst:
18-24, 55-64
Women
SEG: C2, E
Tees Valley
Drinkers
(Low & Increasing / higher risk)
Shifts to lower levels of agreement seen amongst:Slide55
Drinking attitudes
Man drinking 8 pints of lager/beer when out with friends% acceptable 2011
Significant Change?
Woman regularly drinking 2 glasses of wine 5 nights a week
55-64
Men
SEG: AB, C2
Tyne and Wear
Shifts to higher levels of agreement seen amongst:
55+
Men
SEG: AB, C2, D
Tyne and Wear
Increasing / higher risk & Non Drinkers
Shifts to higher levels of agreement seen amongst:
43
%
+5
%
39
%
+7
%Slide56
Coronary heart disease
Greatly increases the risk of% 2011
Significant Change?
63
%
No
Depression
61
%
+8
%
Cancer
36
%
No
Stroke
52
%
+7
%
Gaining weight
73
%
+10
%
Perceptions of health impacts of alcohol
All NE Respondents Slide57
Who’s influencing the shifts?
18-44, 55-64WomenSEG: C1, C2DrinkersTyne & Wear, Tees Valley18-24, 35-44, 55-64Women
SEG: C1, C2
Low risk drinkers
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley
25-44
Men & women
SEG: AB, C1, C2
Drinkers
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley, Northumberland
Perception that alcohol greatly increases the risk of depression up 8%
Perception that alcohol greatly increases the risk of stroke up 7%
Perception that alcohol greatly increases the risk of gaining weight up 10% Slide58
Assaults and violence
% associating 2011Significant Change?
97
%
+3
%
Domestic abuse
95
%
+4
%
Teenage pregnancy
82
%
-6
%
Anti-social behaviour
97
%
No
Social Impacts of AlcoholSlide59
Who’s influencing the shifts?
18-34WomenSEG: C2, ETees ValleyDrinkers (low & increasing / higher risk)
18-24, 35-44
Men & women
SEG: C2, D, E
County Durham, Tees Valley
Drinkers
(low & increasing / higher risk)
18-24, 45-54
Men & women
SEG AB, C2
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley
Low risk and non-drinkers
Proportion associating alcohol with assaults and violence up 3%
Proportion associating alcohol with domestic abuse up 4%
Proportion associating alcohol with teenage pregnancy down 6% Slide60
SummarySlide61
Summary
Drinking BehaviourThere has been no change to the regional profile of drinkers between 2010 and 2011The key consumption measures around how often alcohol is consumed and the amount consumed have also remained constant...and we continue to see that drinking behaviour is influenced by demographic variables, such as age and gender
How North East residents feel about their drinking has also remained constant
There has, however, been a decline in the proportion who have made or thought about making changes to their drinking behaviour in the last 12 months
The size of the ‘cause for concern’ segments remain in line with 2010Slide62
Summary
Alcohol UnitsReflecting 2010, the vast majority of North East residents have heard of measuring alcohol in unitsDespite this, there has been a decline in the proportion of NE drinkers keeping a check on their units. This is evident amongst both men and womenWomen are, however, more likely than men to monitor their alcohol intake using units...although there has been a slight fall amongst female drinkers (and women generally) with regard to understanding how many units should be consumed in one daySlide63
Summary
Minimum PricingAwareness of minimum pricing has remained constant this yearThere has, however, been an increase in support for the policy, with over half of the North East population now in favour There has been a polarisation of attitudes this year with regard to willingness to pay more for personal consumption alcohol; the majority, however, would be prepared to pay more The vast majority of drinkers do not feel that the introduction of minimum pricing will change their drinking behaviour
...although the findings indicate that the likelihood of drinking less may be higher amongst target groupsSlide64
Summary
Children & AlcoholAttitudes with regard to alcohol advertising have shifted positively, most notably on the issue of alcohol adverting targeting the under 18sThese shifts have resulted in:A ban on alcohol advertising before 9pm being supported by over 2 in 3Over 1 in 2 perceiving that alcohol advertising targets the under 18s
There has, however, been a ‘liberalisation’ in terms of how often people perceive it is acceptable for young people to drink alcohol, with a lower proportion of NE residents feeling that 13-15 and 16-17 year olds should
never
drink alcohol
There continues to be a marked difference between the acceptability of providing alcohol to 13-15 year olds, compared to those aged 16-17 (with twice as many feeling it’s acceptable for the latter group to drink alcohol)Slide65
Summary
NormalisationAttitudes towards some of the example drinking behaviours have changed, both positively and negatively:A lower proportion perceive that it’s acceptable for:A woman to drink a bottle of wine when out with friendsa man to drive after drinking two pints lager/beer
A higher proportion perceive that it’s acceptable for:
A man to drink 8 pints when out with friends
A woman drinking 2 glasses of wine 5 nights a week
Slide66
Summary
Social and Health ImpactsIn 2011, gaining weight is the health harm most strongly associated with alcohol, the result of a 10% increaseThe strength of association with depression and stroke
with alcohol has also increased
Cancer
continues to be the health harm associated least with alcohol... and at significantly lower levels than the other health harms tested
The vast majority of the NE public associate negative social impacts with alcohol, with an increasing proportion linking alcohol with assaults and violence and domestic abuse
Interestingly, there has been a fall in the proportion of the NE public associating teenage pregnancy with alcohol, although the large majority do make the link
Slide67
The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour Change
Input measureseg comms campaigns undertaken
Output
measures
eg awareness of safe levels
Outtake
measures
eg understanding and knowledge
Intermediate
measures
eg attitudes, intentions, response
Behavioural change
measures
Reduced consumption
Outcome/impact
measures
Reduced ARHA
Source: COI “Evaluation for Alcohol Social Marketing . Guidance for PCTs”Slide68
The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour Change : NE Drinkers
Base: All NE drinkers
BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE
INTERMEDIATE MEASURES
OUTTAKE MEASURES
OUTPUT MEASURESSlide69
The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour Change : All NE Drinkers: 2011
BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE
INTERMEDIATE MEASURES
OUTTAKE MEASURES
OUTPUT MEASURES
Base: All NE drinkers (1799); Low risk (857), Increasing/high risk (942)Slide70