3   Who the survey covers

3.1.     Where questionnaires were returned from
3.2.     About the respondent
3.3.     About the household
3.4.     About the allergies

3.1 Where questionnaires were returned from

The various demographics indicating from where the questionnaires were returned are displayed in Tables 3.1a-d.

Country

Table 3.1a – Country

Number of respondents (n)

Percentage (%) of respondents

Australia

413

81

New Zealand

97

19

Total

510

100

Of the total achieved sample (n=510), 81% of responses were derived from Australia and 19% from New Zealand. This was the proportion expected based on the relative populations of each country.

State / Territory or Island

Table 3.1b – State/territory or Island

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=413)

(n=97)

State / Island

%

%

New South Wales

30

 

Victoria

22

 

Queensland

21

 

South Australia

11

 

Australian Capital Territory

6

 

Western Australia

5

 

Tasmania

4

 

North Island

 

95

South Island

 

4

Not answered

0

1

Total

*99

100

*         Does not add to 100% due to rounding.

The sample was spread across the seven Australian states and territories, however not all locations adequately represent each of the three sample groups. This is discussed fully in section 2.2.

Based on the recruitment method, the vast majority of the New Zealand sample was from the North Island (95%), and even though some respondents were also obtained via a national support group, the proportions remained skewed to the North Island, beyond the natural population division [1] .  

Geographical location

Table 3.1c – Geographical location

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Geographic location

%

%

%

City

76

75

81

Large regional centre

11

b 12

a 5

Small town, rural or remote

13

13

13

Total

100

100

100

ab       I ndicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at the 95% confidence level )

Three quarters of the total sample (76%) lived in cities, whereas around one in ten lived in l arge regional centres(11%) and a similar proportion lived in small towns, rural or remote areas (13%).  

For Australia there was some variation when compared to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data [2] .

However, it should be pointed out that there are two particular variations that arise in any comparison, and they are:

  • different sized centres are classed as large regional centres by different countries and by the different Australian states/territories; and

  • in this survey, people classified their own location.

There were also variations when the survey figures were compared to official 2001 Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) data [3] . The variations here are:

  •  the distribution was likely to have been affected by the increased proportion from the North Island; and

  • respondents classified their own location.

Whereas in Australia 12% of respondents said they lived in a large regional centre, there was a significantly smaller proportion of New Zealand respondents living in large regional centres and a larger proportion saying they lived in a city.  

Sample source

Table 3.1d – Sample source

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Sample Source

%

%

%

Hospital / institution

32

b 34

a 22

Private clinic

34

33

37

Support group

34

32

41

Total

100

100

100

ab       I ndicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at the 95% confidence level )

The sample was derived from three different sources:hospitals and medical institutions,private clinicsor immunologistsand support groups. Table 3.1d shows that the sample was evenly distributed between the three groups overall, and this was also true of the Australian sample. However, the New Zealand sample contained more respondents from support groups and significantly less from both hospitals/ medical institutions, and private clinics than the Australian sample.  


3.2    About the respondent

Before looking at the results of the survey, it is important to understand who was actually answering the questionnaire. Therefore, a summary of various demographic factors is shown in Tables 3.2a-f. As this survey targeted a specific population, it was not expected that the demographic profile of the sample would match that of the whole population. Major differences are noted for information where relevant.

Who responded

Table 3.2a – Who responded

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Person responding

%

%

%

Main / joint grocery buyer

88

b 90

a 79

Person with an allergy

11

b 9

a 21

This question not answered

1

1

0

Total

100

100

100

ab       Indicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at the 95% confidence level )


The above table shows that only a small proportion of respondents overall were ‘the person with the food allergy’. Thus, the vast majority of respondents were the main or joint grocery buyers but not the person with the allergy (88%), with only one in ten (11%) being the person with the allergy [4] . There were significantly more people with food allergies answering the questionnaire in the New Zealand sample. This could relate to the smaller sample derived from hospitals or medical organisations and the resultant increased representation amongst both private clinics and support groups.

Age of respondent

Table 3.2b – Age of respondent

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Age of respondent (years)

%

%

%

15-24

2

2

5

25-34

32

34

28

35-44

53

b 55

a 43

45-54

9

b 7

a 17

55+

3

2

6

Total

*99

*99

*99

ab       Indicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at the 95% confidence level )
*         Does not add to 100% due to rounding

Half of respondents (53%) were aged between 35 and 44 years and another third (32%) were aged between 25 and 34. One in ten (12%) were aged 45 or over, and only 2% were aged less than 25.  

In general, the respondents from New Zealand were older than their Australian counterparts, with significantly more aged between 45 and 54 years answering, and significantly less of those aged between 35 to 44 years doing so.

Sex of respondent

Table 3.2c – Sex of respondent

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Sex of respondent

%

%

%

Male

6

6

5

Female

94

94

95

Total

100

100

100

The majority of respondents werefemales(94%) whilst 6% weremen.   This was consistent across both Australia and New Zealand and indicates the likelihood of the main grocery buyer being female, as well as being the parent responsible for childcare (SNZ 20011 ; A BS 1995). Notably though, more males than females were the allergy sufferers (see section 3.4a).

Education level

Table 3.2d – Education level

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Education level

%

%

%

Up to secondary

28

28

29

Trade / technical qualifications

28

b 26

a 38

Tertiary qualifications

43

b 46

a 33

Total

*99

100

100

ab       Indicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at the 95% confidence level )
*         Does not add to 100% due to rounding

Two in five people who answered said they had tertiary qualifications (43%), whereas three in ten had either up to secondary or trade/technical qualifications (28% each).

The Australian sample had significantly more tertiary educated respondents than the New Zealand sample (46% versus 33% respectively); whereas the New Zealand sample had more trade/technical educated respondents than the Australian sample (38% versus 26% respectively).

When compared to the ABS or SNZ data, the respondents to the allergen survey were likely to have had more post-secondary education. ABS [5] data indicate that the survey sample was skewed towards the tertiary educated; and SNZ [6] data indicate a similar bias.

Ethnic origin

Table 3.2e – Ethnic origin

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all RESPONDENTS ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Ethnic origin

%

%

%

Aboriginal

NA

1

-

Torres Strait Islander

NA

1

-

Maori

NA

-

6

Pacific Islander

NA

-

3

A very small percentage of the Australian sample were either Aboriginal  or Torres Strait Isl ander peoples (1% each), which reflected the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the total Australian population according to ABS data [7] . Six percent of the New Zealand sample was Maori and 3% was Pacific  Islander, which when compared to SNZ population data was half the proportion of Maori and Pacific Islanders in the total population [8] .

Main language at home

Table 3.2f – Main language at home

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all respondents ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Main language at home

%

%

%

English

97

97

99

Other

3

3

1

Total

100

100

*99

*         Does not add to 100% due to rounding

The vast majority of respondents said that English  was the main language spoken at home (97% overall). This was similar for both Australia and New Zealand.

3.3    About the household

The household demographics are as shown in Tables 3.3a-d.

Household income

Table 3.3a – Household income

Australia
AUD(a)

New Zealand
NZD (b)

base: all respondents ( n)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Household income

%

%

<$25,000

8

7

$25,000 - $39,999

b 14

a 6

$40,000 - $74,999

34

31

$75,000 - $100,000

21

19

>$100,000

b 18

a 33

Not answered

5

4

Total

100

100

ab        Indicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at   the 95% confidence level )

It should be noted that the dollar values represented relate to the currency in each country, as shown on the questionnaire. No attempt was made to convert to a common currency.

The New Zealand sample varied from the Australian in that there were significantly fewer people earning between $25,000 and $40,000 (6% versus 14% Australia), and significantly more earning over $100,000 (33% versus 18% Australia).

Using the high point for the lowest category, a mid-point for the three middle ranges, and the low point for the highest category, a calculation yields an average income of approximately $71,000 [NZD] for New Zealand and $63,000 [AUD] for Australia. Note that all figures were rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

Household structure

Table 3.3b – Household structure

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

base: all respondents ( n)

(n=510)

(n=413)

(n=97)

Household structure

%

%

%

Single person, living alone

1

b 1

a 3

Single person, living with child (ren)

6

6

5

Couple, living without child (ren)

5

b 2

a 16

Couple, living with child (ren)

87

b 90

a 74

Unrelated adults

1

1

1

Total

100

100

*99

ab       Indicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at the 95% confidence level )
*         Does not add to 100% due to rounding

The vast majority of the respondents were couples living with children(87%).

There were significantly more couples with children for Australia than for Zealand (90% versus 74% respectively), and significantly more couples without children in the New Zealand sample than the Australian one (16% versus 2% respectively).

Ages of children living at home

Table 3.3c – Age of children living at home

total

Australia
(a)

New Zealand
(b)

BASE: THOSE WITH CHILDREN ( n )

(n=481)

(n=402)

(n=79)

Ages of children at home (years)

%*

%*

%*

<3

41

41

42

3-7

66

b 69

a 52

8-11

33

34

25

12-15

12

11

13

16-17

5

5

5

18+

4

b 3

a 8

ab       Indicates categories where there was a significant difference between the results in each column (significance at the 95% confidence level )
*         Exceeds 100% as multiple responses allowed.

There were three major clusters in terms