Transcript EATWELL WP 4

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)