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 of the age of any children living at home:

• a fifth of the respondents (41%) had a child aged under three years old in their household;
  
  
• two thirds (66%) had a child aged between three and seven years old; and
  
  
• a third (33%) had children aged between eight and eleven years old.

In addition, one fifth (21%) of the respondents had a child aged 12 years or over in the household, with 4% of these being 18 years and over.

The Australian sample varied from the New Zealand sample in relation to the proportion that had a child aged between three and seven in the household – there were significantly more amongst Australian respondents than amongst New Zealand respondents (69% versus 52% respectively). Conversely, there were significantly more children aged 18 years and over included in the New Zealand sample (8% versus 3% in Australia).  

Number of people in the household with allergies

Table 3.3d – Number of people in the household with allergies	total	Australia (a)	New Zealand (b)
base: all respondents ( n)	(n=510)	(n=413)	(n=97)
Number of people in household with allergies	%	%	%
One	78	76	84
Two	19	21	14
Three	2	2	2
Four	1	1	0
Total	100	100	100

The majority of households (78%) had only one person in the household with a food allergy, one in ten (19%) had two persons and the remainder (3%) had more than two people with allergies.

The samples for both countries were very similar on this measure.

3.4   About the allergies

The final demographics are about the allergies of those in the household. These are shown in Tables 3.4a-f.

Age of person with the most serious allergy

Table 3.4a – Age of person with most serious allergy	total	Australia (a)	New Zealand (b)
base: all respondents ( n)	(n=510)	(n=413)	(n=97)
Age of person with most serious allergy (years)	%	%	%
< 3	24	24	24
3-5	28	29	25
6-12	33	b 35	a 22
13-17	4	4	2
18-24	4	3	6
25+	8	b 4	a 21
Total	*101	*99	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

The majority of those with the most serious food allergies were children, with around:

• a quarter (24%) aged under three years old;
  
  
• a further quarter (28%) aged between three and five years old; and
  
  
• a third (33%) aged between six and twelve years old.

There was a sharp decrease in the ages of those with the most serious allergies from the age of 12 years old. This may not necessarily indicate a tendency for allergies to diminish past this age but could be because more diagnosis occurs before the age of 12 years.

Some differences in age were evident by country, with the Australian sample including significantly more children aged six to twelve years old than the New Zealand sample (35% versus 22% respectively). Conversely, the New Zealand sample includes significantly more adults than the Australian sample (21% versus 4%).  

Sex of person with most serious allergy

Table 3.4b – Sex of person with most serious allergy	total	Australia (a)	New Zealand (b)
base: all respondents ( n)	(n=510)	(n=413)	(n=97)
Sex of person with most serious allergy	%	%	%
Male	56	b 58	a 48
Female	44	b 42	a 53
Total	100	100	*101

^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

More than half of the respondents recorded that the person with the most serious food allergy was male (56% versus 44% who said female). Again, there was a distinction by country, with Australians more likely than New Zealanders to report that males had the most serious allergy (58% versus 48% respectively).

Identity of person with most serious allergy

Table 3.4c – Identity of person with most serious allergy	total	Australia (a)	New Zealand (b)
base: all respondents ( n)	(n=510)	(n=413)	(n=97)
Person with most serious allergy	%	%	%
Self	9	b 6	a 21
Partner	1	1	2
Child	90	b 93	a 77
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 )

One in ten respondents (9%) were themselves the ‘person with the most serious food allergy’ and the vast majority of the remainder were children (90%). In 1% of cases the person with the ‘most serious food allergy’ was the partner of the respondent.

There were differences by country, with a significantly larger number of respondents in New Zealand answering on their own behalf (21%) compared to only 6% of Australians answering for themselves.

Total allergies in respondent households

Table 3.4d – Total allergies in the household	total	Australia (a)	New Zealand (b)
base: all respondents ( n)	(n=510)	(n=413)	(n=97)
Total allergies in household (Q3, Q4, Q8)	%*	%*	%*
Peanuts	78	b 81	a 65
Tree nuts	55	b 59	a 37
Egg	53	53	54
Milk	39	b 36	a 52
Shellfish	21	21	23
Fish	16	16	18
Soy	15	b 13	a 24
Sesame seeds	14	b 15	a 8
Wheat	13	b 11	a 23
Sulphites	10	10	9
Other allergies**	19	19	21

^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.
**       'Other allergies' included fruits, vegetables, meat, colourings and flavourings, etc.

The questionnaire (Appendices B & C) asked three questions about food allergies in the household (Q3, Q4 and Q8). The question that was completed depended on the number of people in the household. All responses were totalled and a variable called 'total allergies' was formed.

As can be seen, the four major allergies in households were:

• peanuts (78%);
• tree nuts (55%);
• egg (53%); and
• milk  (39%).

Amongst these four categories, the occurrence of three of the major food allergies varied by country, with the Australian sample significantly more likely to include people reporting a peanut allergy than the New Zealand sample (81% versus 65% respectively); and this was also the case for tree nuts (59% versus 37% respectively). However, the reverse was true for milk, with 52% of the New Zealand sample reporting milk allergies compared to only 36% of the Australian sample. There was no variation by country for the egg allergy, with 53% of the Australian sample and 54% of the New Zealand sample reporting this allergy.

Other significant differences between the two countries can be seen in Table 3.4d.

Most serious food allergies in the household

Table 3.4e – Most serious food allergies in the household	total	Australia (a)	New Zealand (b)
base: all respondents ( n)	(n=510)	(n=413)	(n=97)
Most serious food allergies in household (Q4 / Q8)	%	%	%
Peanuts	78	b 81	a 65
Tree nuts	54	b 57	a 37
Egg	52	52	54
Milk	37	b 33	a 52
Shellfish	20	20	21
Soy	14	b 12	a 23
Fish	14	14	17
Sesame seeds	13	b 14	a 7
Wheat	10	b 8	a 21
Sulphites	9	9	9
Other allergies	16	16	18

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

The allergens causing the most serious food allergies in the household were similar to the four major allergies discussed in the section on total household allergies above, i.e.:

• peanuts (78%);
• tree nuts (54%);
• egg (52%); and
• milk(37%).

Again, the occurrence of three of these varied by country, similar to the effect discussed above.

Due to the similarity of responses for both total allergies and serious allergies, the reporting of results in this report will be by total allergies in the household.

Membership of support group

Table 3.4f – Membership of support group	total	Australia (a)	New Zealand (b)
base: all respondents ( n)	(n=510)	(n=413)	(n=97)
Membership of a support group (Q21a)	%	%	%
Yes	51	b 47	a 67
No	48	b 52	a 33
Not answered	1	1	0

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

A half of the sample (51%) said they belonged to an allergy support group.   Membership levels were significantly higher in New Zealand than in Australia (67% versus 47% respectively). However, this was most likely because a higher proportion of the New Zealand sample than the Australian sample was derived from contact via a support group.

Further detail about support groups is included at section 5.5.

 

Exec Summary  | Section 1 |  2  | 4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  Appendixes  |  Full Report pdf 1609 kb