Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Workpackage 4 Public acceptance of interventions Mario Mazzocchi, Sara Capacci (University of Bologna) M1 WP1 Benchmarking nutrition policies, evaluation and success stories WP6 DisWsemination M6 M12 M18 M24 WP2 WP3 Quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions Private sector marketing effectiveness and relevance to public sector marketing WP4 Public acceptance of interventions M30 WP5 Propose effective policy interventions, methods of evaluation and data M36 M42 collection priorities for the future. Key contributors • UNIBO: 21 man months • UGENT: 5 man months • UREAD: 5 man months • Other contributors (1 man month): AU, INRAN, JUMC, EUFIC Main objective Compare public acceptance for alternative interventions, across countries and individuals, focusing on different sub-groups of the population (e.g. parents vs. non-parents, education level, etc.). This allows an indirect evaluation of the cost and benefits of alternative actions as they are perceived by the public. (social sensitivity) Specific objectives 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) An evaluation of public concern towards nutritionrelated issues compared to other policy priorities, including the production of preference maps towards policies. An assessment of the level of support for alternative nutrition-targeted policies An evaluation of public preparedness to respond to alternative nutrition-targeted interventions An evaluation of public attitudes towards obesity and its determinants A comparison with similar surveys carried out in the US (see Oliver and Lee, 2005) Tasks Task 1: Survey and sampling design (task coordinator UNIBO). Task 2: Questionnaire design and cross-translations (task coordinator UGENT) Task 3: Field work (sub-contracted). The data-set with individual (anonymous) data will be accessible to all project partners. Task 4: Analysis of results and comparisons (task coordinator UNIBO). Deliverables and timeline D4.1. Data set on public acceptance of interventions (M 24) D4.2.Validated results from statistical analysis of acceptability (M30) MILESTONES M4.1 Completion of survey design and sampling strategy (month 12, UNIBO) M4.2 Piloting and testing of the questionnaire (month 18, UGENT) M4.3 Data-set ready (month 22, UNIBO) M4.4 Results analysed (month 30, UNIBO) The survey/sampling plan • COUNTRIES: UK, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Poland • Representative for sub-groups • Sampling size between 600 and 1000 respondents • Mixed administration method combining computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and electronic (internet-based) interviews. – Bias? Methodological paper? Questionnaire 1) preference maps towards policies. 2) Level of support for alternative nutritiontargeted policies 3) Public preparedness to respond to alternative nutrition-targeted interventions 4) An evaluation of public attitudes towards obesity and its determinants 5) ...? Subcontracting • • • • One for each country? International company? Internet issue? Administrative (budget) issues? Statistical analysis • Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis • Structural equation modelling (SEM) • Cluster analysis. • Multi-dimensional scaling and preference mapping (also taking into account external data gathered from WP1, WP2 and WP3) Oliver and Lee, 2005 • As with many types of policies, the political and substantive success of obesity policies depends largely on public opinion. • What are Americans’ attitudes about obesity and what determines support for obesity policies? General attitudes toward obesity • Individual awareness of obesity as an health concern General attitudes toward obesity • Individual beliefs about the etiology of obesity Attitudes toward Obesity-related policies Possible predictors of support for obesity policies: • ideology • socio-demographics ( age, sex, income level..) • indirect measures of personal interest and awareness about obesity (diet and exercise profile of respondents) • direct measures of salience and attentiveness (perception of obesity as a national health problem) • beliefs about analogous policy issues (see cigarettes taxation) • beliefs about the etiology of obesity ( people who strongly agreed with environmental influence on obesity were more likely to support obesity policies)