Balance Benchmarking 2011 24 th November 2011

Balance Benchmarking 2011

24th November 2011

Introduction

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 consumed

In 2011, a second wave of research was undertaken to measure progress against key performance indicators

This presentation outlines the findings from the 2011 Balance Benchmarking project, comparing them to the 2010 benchmark

Methodology Methodology used same as 2010:

Face to face interviewing

Interviews conducted across North East England

91% of interviews conducted on-street; 9% door-to-door

Data weighted to socio-demographic profile of North East population

A total of 2,388 interviews were undertaken

Alcohol Consumption

Regional Profile of Drinkers 2011

Non drinkers

23%

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 change

Key consumption measures

Frequency of

consumption

Number 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

Regional Profile of Drinkers 2011

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Drinking Behaviour

Drinking too much alcohol% perceive

drinking too much rarely /

never

Significant Change?

% perceive drinking too

much regularly /

occasionally

Significant Change?

34% No 66% No

8% No 92% No

60% No 40% No

Men18-34 yearsGateshead

Women55+

All drinkers

Low risk

Increasing / higher riskAlso higher

than average amongst:

Concern about amount of alcohol consumed

All drinkers

% fairly / very concerned

Significant Change?

% not very / not at all

concernedSignificant Change?

Low risk


92% No 8% No

98% +2% 2% -2%

86% No 14% No

Also higher than average

amongst:

Women65+

SEG C2

Men25-34 years

SEG EGateshead

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:

MenGateshead

Increasing / higher risk drinkersThose very or fairly concerned about

their drinkingThose who regularly or occasionally

drink too much

Thinking about reducing LOWER than average amongst:

Women65+

SEG DStockton-on-Tees, South Tyneside

Low risk drinkersThose not very or not at all

concerned about their drinkingThose who rarely or never drink too

much

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


18% -8%

Decrease driven by shifts amongst:

25-54, 65+Men & womenSEG: AB, C1, D

Tyne & Wear, Tees ValleyDrinkers (low &

increasing / higher risk)

Amount of alcohol consumed compared to 12 months ago

All drinkers

% consuming less

Significant Change?

% consuming more

Significant Change?

Low risk


8% No 25% -6%

4% No 23% -9%

12% No 26% No

Also higher than

average amongst:

18-24 yearsGateshead

Increasing / higher risk drinkers

18-34 years65+

DarlingtonNorth Tyneside

Amount of alcohol consumed compared to 12 months ago

All drinkers

% consuming less

Significant Change?

% consuming more

Significant Change?

Low risk


8% No 25% -6%

4% No 23% -9%

12% No 26% No

Also higher than

average amongst:

18-24 yearsGateshead


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 reducing

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


42% +6%

Incidence of pre-loading HIGHER amongst

18-34Middlesbrough, Newcastle

South TynesideIncreasing / higher risk drinkers

Incidence of pre-loading LOWER amongst

45+SEG E

Darlington, North Tyneside Low risk drinkers

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


42% +6%

Increase driven by shifts amongst:

18-24, 55-64Men

SEG: C1, C2Tyne & Wear


Non Drinkers who have given up in past 12 months

% had a conversation with

a health professional

The Influence of Health ProfessionalsAll 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

professionals27% 3%

Profiling the NE Drinker Segment

Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011

Perception of personal behaviour x concern

Don't drink too much / are

concerned

1%

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:


Perception 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:


Perception of personal behaviour x change in past 12 months

Don't drink too much / drink the

same

48%

Drink too much / drink

the same

19%


more

5%

Don't drink too much / drink less

15%


less

10%

Don't drink too much / drink more

3%

Y-O-Y

-5%

Y-O-Y

+7%


Perception of personal behaviour x thought of reducing

Concerned / have NOT thought of reducing

1%

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%

Profiling the NE Drinker SegmentConcern x change in past 12

months

Not concerned / drink the

same

65%

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%

Profiling the NE Drinker SegmentIntention x change in past 12

months

Have NOT thought about

reducing / drink the

same

61%

Have thought about

reducing / drink the

same

7%

Have thought about

reducing / drink more

3%


reducing / drink less

16%

Have thought about

reducing / drink less

9%


reducing / drink more

5%

Y-O-Y

-7%

Y-O-Y

+7%

Understanding Units & Limits

Awareness of alcohol units

Aware of measuring alcohol in units


91% No

Awareness HIGHER than average amongst:

SEG: AB, C1Hartlepool

Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)

Awareness LOWER than average amongst:

65+SEG E

NewcastleSouth TynesideNon-drinkers

All NE Respondents

Keeping a check of units

Do you keep a check of how many units of alcohol you

drink?


15% -9%

Monitoring units HIGHER than average amongst:

WomenSEG AB

DarlingtonNorth Tyneside

Low risk drinkers

Monitoring units LOWER than average amongst:

Men18-24SEG D

MiddlesbroughGateshead


All NE Drinkers

Keeping a check of units

Do you keep a check of how many units of alcohol you

drink?


15% -9%


55+Men & women

SEG: C1, C2, D, ETyne & Wear; Tees

ValleyDrinkers: low &

increasing / higher risk

All NE Drinkers

Awareness of recommended maximum number of units

Aware that there is a recommended maximum number

of units

% aware 2011 Significant Change?

76% -7%


35-44SEG: AB, C1Hartlepool

NorthumberlandDrinkers (increasing / higher

risk)


65+SEG: D, E

Redcar & ClevelandNewcastle

Non-drinkers

All NE Respondents

Awareness that there is a recommended maximum number of

units Aware that there is a

recommended maximum number of units


76% -7%


18-24, 55+Men & womenSEG: C2, D, ETyne & Wear

Drinkers (low risk)Non drinkers

All NE Respondents

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

limits39% -6%

OVERALL POPULATION

Proportion of MEN DRINKERS who understand recommended daily

limits46% No

Proportion of WOMEN DRINKERS who understand recommended

daily limits42% -7%

DRINKERS

Minimum Pricing

Attitudes to current prices for alcohol

Supermarkets 12% 23% 1% 52% 9% 4%

Base: All respondents (2,388)

65+ yearsSEG: AB

Non-drinkers

18-24 year olds SEG: E

Drink 4+ days a weekS Tyneside

Northumberland

No significant year on year changes

Awareness of minimum pricing

Aware of Minimum Pricing


45% No


Men35 – 54

SEG: AB, C1Darlington

NorthumberlandDrinkers


Women18 – 34

SEG: D, ENewcastle

South TynesideNon-drinkers

All NE Respondents

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 :

WomenSEG: AB

South Tyneside Sunderland

NorthumberlandNon-drinkers & low risk drinkers

Objection HIGHER than average amongst :

18-24 yearsSEG: C2s

Stockton on Tees Gateshead

Drinkers (increasing & higher risk)

Support for minimum pricing% 2011 Significant

Change?

Support Minimum Pricing 56% +7%

Against Minimum Pricing 28% No

Increase in support driven by shifts amongst:

25-44WomenSEG: E

NorthumberlandTyne & Wear

Drinkers

All NE Respondents

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

benefits29% +4%

Preparedness to pay more HIGHER than average amongst :

Women55 – 64SEG: AB

South Tyneside , Sunderland, NorthumberlandLow risk drinkers

Supporters of minimum pricing

Not prepared to pay more HIGHER than average amongst :

Men18-24SEG E

Stockton on Tees, DarlingtonIncreasing & higher risk drinkers

Objectors to minimum pricing

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

benefits29% +4%

Increase in support driven by shifts amongst:

WomenSEG: C2,E

Tyne & WearDrinkers

Increase in objection driven by shifts amongst:

MenSEG: A,B

County DurhamTees Valley

All NE Respondents

Effects of minimum pricing: impact on support

Reduce 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%

Effects of minimum pricing

Increases typically driven by:

Younger age groups (18-34)Women

C2DEs (most notably C2 & E)Drinkers

Non-drinkers

Effects have greater influence amongst:

WomenNon drinkers

Low risk drinkersMiddlesbrough

Redcar & ClevelandSupporters of minimum

pricing

Effects have lower influence amongst

Men Stockton on TeesNorth Tyneside

Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)

Those neutral and objectors to minimum pricing

14% would drink less

86% would drink the same

Effects 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 EsIncreasing/higher risk drinkersDarlington ; HartlepoolGateshead; Newcastle All NE

Respondents

Children & Alcohol

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 drinkersSouth Tyneside

LOWER than average agreement amongst:Younger age groups (18-34)

MenSEG: C1


Darlington; N Tyneside

All NE Respondents


Alcohol advertising currently targets the under 18s

% agree 2011

Significant Change?

55% +10%

25-44, 55-64Men & women

SEG groups (except C1s)

Tees ValleyLow risk drinkers & non-

drinkers

Positive shifts in opinion evident amongst...

All NE Respondents

All NE Respondents


There should be a ban on alcohol advertising before 9pm

% agree 2011

Significant Change?

68% +3%

HIGHER than average agreement amongst:

WomenOlder age groups (55+)

SEG: ECounty Durham

Non-drinkers

LOWER than average agreement amongst:

MenYounger age groups (18-34)

HartlepoolStockton-on-TeesNorth Tyneside

Drinkers(Increasing / higher risk)


There should be a ban on alcohol advertising before 9pm

% agree 2011

Significant Change?

68% +3%

Age groups: 18-34; 55-64

WomenSEG: C2, E

NorthumberlandTees Valley

Non-drinkers

Positive shifts in opinion evident amongst...

All NE Respondents

Giving alcohol to children

Proportion stating that children aged 13-15 should NEVER drink alcohol


72% -5%

More likely to agree:65+

SEG: EDarlington; Hartlepool;

Gateshead; South TynesideNon-drinkers

Lower risk drinkers

Less likely to agree:18-24

SEG: AB,C1County Durham; Stockton


All NE Respondents

Giving alcohol to children

Proportion stating that children aged 13-15 should NEVER drink alcohol


72% -5%

Negative shifts in opinion evident amongst...

18-24; 35-44Men & women

SEG: C1, DTyne & Wear; Tees

ValleyIncreasing / higher risk

drinkers

All NE Respondents

Giving alcohol to children% 2011 Significant

Change?

Proportion stating that children aged 16-17 should NEVER drink alcohol 34% -7%

More likely to agree:Women

65+SEG: E

Darlington; South TynesideNon-drinkers

Less likely to agree:Men

18-24; 35-44SEG: C1Stockton


All NE Respondents

Giving alcohol to children% 2011 Significant

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,C2Tyne & Wear; Tees

ValleyLower & Increasing / higher risk drinkers

All NE Respondents

Normalisation

Drinking attitudesWoman drinking bottle of wine when out with friends

% acceptable

2011Significant 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

Drinking attitudesWoman drinking bottle of wine when out with friends

% acceptable


64% -4%

Man driving after drinking two pints lager/beer 5% -3%

WomenSEG: C1, E

County DurhamTees ValleyDrinkers

(Low & Increasing / higher risk)

Shifts to lower levels of agreement seen amongst:

18-24, 55-64Women

SEG: C2, ETees Valley

Drinkers(Low & Increasing / higher risk)

Shifts to lower levels of agreement seen amongst:

Drinking attitudesMan drinking 8 pints of lager/beer when out with friends

% acceptable


Woman regularly drinking 2 glasses of wine 5 nights a week

55-64Men

SEG: AB, C2Tyne and Wear

Shifts to higher levels of agreement seen amongst:

55+Men

SEG: AB, C2, DTyne and Wear

Increasing / higher risk & Non Drinkers

Shifts to higher levels of agreement seen amongst:

43% +5%

39% +7%

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

Who’s influencing the shifts?18-44, 55-64

WomenSEG: C1, C2

DrinkersTyne & Wear, Tees Valley

18-24, 35-44, 55-64Women

SEG: C1, C2Low risk drinkers

Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley

25-44Men & women

SEG: AB, C1, C2Drinkers

Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley, Northumberland

Perception that alcohol greatly increases the risk of

depression up 8%


stroke up 7%


gaining weight up 10%

Assaults and violence

% associating

2011

Significant Change?

97% +3%

Domestic abuse 95% +4%

Teenage pregnancy 82% -6%

Anti-social behaviour 97% No

Social Impacts of Alcohol

Who’s influencing the shifts?18-34

WomenSEG: C2, ETees ValleyDrinkers

(low & increasing / higher risk)

18-24, 35-44Men & womenSEG: C2, D, E

County Durham, Tees ValleyDrinkers

(low & increasing / higher risk)

18-24, 45-54Men & women

SEG AB, C2Tyne & 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%

Summary

SummaryDrinking Behaviour• There has been no change to the regional profile of drinkers between 2010 and

2011

• The 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 2010

Summary

Alcohol Units• Reflecting 2010, the vast majority of North East residents have heard of

measuring alcohol in units

• Despite 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 women

• Women 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 day

Summary

Minimum Pricing• Awareness of minimum pricing has remained constant this year

• There 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 groups

SummaryChildren & Alcohol• Attitudes with regard to alcohol advertising have shifted positively, most notably

on the issue of alcohol adverting targeting the under 18s

• These shifts have resulted in:– A ban on alcohol advertising before 9pm being supported by over 2 in 3– Over 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)

SummaryNormalisation• Attitudes 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 friends

• a 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

SummarySocial and Health Impacts• In 2011, gaining weight is the health harm most strongly associated with alcohol,

the result of a 10% increase

• The 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

The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour Change

Input measureseg comms campaigns undertaken

Output measureseg awareness of safe levels

Outtake measureseg understanding and knowledge

Intermediate measureseg attitudes, intentions, response

Behavioural change measuresReduced consumption

Outcome/impact measuresReduced ARHA

Source: COI “Evaluation for Alcohol Social Marketing . Guidance for PCTs”

The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour Change : NE Drinkers

Base: All NE drinkers

BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE

INTERMEDIATE MEASURES

OUTTAKE MEASURES

OUTPUT MEASURES

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)

Balance Benchmarking 2011 24 th November 2011

Documents

Transcript of Balance Benchmarking 2011 24 th November 2011