1

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements Needs Assessment Research Design Focusing on Major Influences (Path Modelling) Overview of All Segments Prioritising Segments Related Reports from this Study Executive Summary: Others Oriented Executive Summary: Support Seekers Appendix I ACNielsen Quality Assurance Appendix II Margins of Error Appendix III References 1 2 3 6 6 9 10 10 15 18 19 20

2

Obstacles to Action

AcknowledgementsSPARC, the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the ACNielsen research team are indebted to Dr Ed Maibach, formerly Porter Novelli International and now National Cancer Institute, USA, for allowing the use of the intellectual framework and questionnaire that provided the basis for this study. A large, multi-disciplinary team of people and organisations throughout New Zealand worked closely together on this project. The research project was contracted to ACNielsen (Antoinette Hastings, Judy Oakden, Jane Young and Hugh Butcher) in collaboration with Dr Charles Sullivan of Capital Research. Professor Rob Lawson, from the Marketing Department at the University of Otago, undertook the path modelling. The research team worked closely throughout the course of the study with the SPARC team; Deb Hurdle, Grant McLean and Christine Parry and the Reference Group. We wish to thank them for their exceptional contribution over many months to a project demanding real partnership. The Reference Group members are thanked for their valued input: Sally Logan-Milne (Milanz) for conceiving the key conceptual basis for Obstacles to Action in collaboration with her colleague Dr Ed Maibach, Dr Kate Scott (Wellington School of Medicine) for expert advice from a health research perspective, and Carolyn Watts (Cancer Society of New Zealand) for co-ordinating the Cancer Societys input and support. Additional input to the Reference Group in the later stages of the project came from Rhonda Pritchard (clinical psychologist), Nick Farland (McBean Associates), Dennis Carroll and Jason Wells (Young & Rubicam Advertising), and Glen McGahan (Nativeworks). The assistance of Dr Harriette Carr (Ministry of Health), Dr Tony Reeder (Otago University), Dr Deanne Weber (Porter Novelli, Washington), Colleen Doyle (American Cancer Society) and Glenda Hughes (Collingwood Promotions) is also acknowledged. And most importantly a huge thank you to those New Zealanders (over 8,000 of you) who took the time to tell us about your experiences and perspectives of physical activity and nutrition. You have provided us with valuable insights that will help SPARC and the Cancer Society to support physical activity and healthy eating in New Zealand now and into the future.

3

Needs AssessmentBackgroundSPARC is the main government agency responsible for promoting physical activity in New Zealand. Awareness of the importance of physical activity is already high. The Push Play media campaign has been successful by international standards in raising awareness of the 30 minutes a day message. A four-year evaluation has demonstrated that awareness of this message increased significantly in the adult population, rising from 13% to 52% from 1999 to 2002 (Bauman et al., 2003). There were also significant increases in intention to do more (thought, talked about doing more). Separately reported in the Sport and Physical Activity Survey (SPARC, 2003), 84% of adults agreed that 30 minutes a day of physical activity is enough to benefit health. Prevalence data from the Sport and Physical Activity Surveys shows that the proportion of adults who are physically active1 increased from 67% to 70% between 1997 and 2001 (a 3% increase = 150,000 more active). However, this means 30% of adults (900,000 adults) are still insufficiently active as measured by the 2.5 hour threshold. In addition, when SPARC measures the proportion of adults who are active at the higher threshold of regular activity (30 minutes a day five times per week), only 40% are regularly active meaning that the majority (60%) of adults are insufficiently active. On stepping back from the data, it was clear that SPARC had a lot of information about physical activity behaviour in terms of what activity levels are and who is, or is not active, and about awareness (knowledge of messages). However, an important piece of the puzzle was missing the why and why not behind physical activity behaviour. The current study is the first time SPARC has analysed a comprehensive range of determinants based on a combination of behaviour, demographic and psychological variables, rather than just asking a group about barriers and motivation that are not clearly linked to behaviour.

ObjectivesSPARCs underlying campaign objective is to increase the percentage of the population who: Do at least 30 minutes a day on five or more days per week (i.e. are regularly physically active), or Undertake a total minimum of 2.5 hours per week moderate intensity physical activity. It is intended that the campaign that develops from this research project will target segments of the following groups as defined through SPARC Facts results (SPARC, 2003): The 30% of the population who are active 2.5 hours per week but not 30 minutes per day for the minimum of five days (i.e. not regularly active) The 20% of the population who are insufficiently active (do some activity, but less than 2.5 hours of physical activity per weeknote that this excludes the 10% who do no activity) And/Or The 15% of the population who either talked about getting more active as a result of the Push Play programme (4%) or thought about getting more active (11%), but did not do so. Note that this 15% may include active people who thought about getting more active.

1

Active adults were those taking part in at least 2.5 hours of sport/leisure-time physical activity in the seven days before the interview.

4

Obstacles to Action

Research DesignMethodology OverviewFull details of the methodology are described in the separate Technical Report, available via the SPARC website www.sparc.org.nz. Questionnaire Development The starting point for the SPARC questionnaire was the questionnaire used in the American Cancer Society study. The questionnaire has over 300 questions within these major sections: Attitudes and opinions, Your health, Health behaviour, Physical activity, Nutrition, Getting health and physical activity information, and About yourself. Changes were made by adapting the American questionnaire to suit the New Zealand audience. The questionnaire was pre-tested with 22 respondents and the feedback from the pre-testing was incorporated into a final draft version for piloting. One hundred respondents were recruited in Auckland and Rotorua to pilot the survey independently. Around half the pilot questionnaires were received in time to improve the final questionnaire; 67 were returned in total. Sampling The random selection of 14,000 households was drawn from the electoral roll. Those of Mori descent identified in the electoral roll and addresses of those aged under 25 years were oversampled to try to counter the typically lower response from these groups. Mailout (29 May 31 July 2003) The mailout process involved a number of contacts with the selected households: A prenotification letter was sent out prior to the main questionnaire to inform the household of the pending survey The questionnaire was then sent with a token incentive (pen) and a freepost envelope to send the completed questionnaire back Approximately a week later, a thank you postcard was sent to all households to thank those who had completed the survey and to remind those who had not yet completed and returned their questionnaire A replacement questionnaire was sent three weeks later for those who had not returned the questionnaire Three weeks later again, a final replacement questionnaire was couriered to households that had not yet returned a questionnaire. Response Rate The final response rate of completed, usable questionnaires is 61%. Details are provided in the separate Technical Report. The Technical Report also includes comparisons of the changing composition of responses (e.g. ethnicity) over the two-month survey period. The comparisons of response rates over the two-month period are unusually enlightening because of the large sample size. Weighting The final results are weighted by age, gender, and ethnicity to the New Zealand population. Details are contained in the separate Technical Report. Analysis The segmentation process was an iterative mixture of judgement and statistical analysis. Key processes included: selecting the Target Group; preliminary clustering and prioritising key variables to drive clustering; and splitting the Target Group into the final segments (details of clustering analysis are in the separate Technical Report). The Target Group is a middle group including around 45% of respondents. It excludes those already regularly active for at least six months (45% of respondents) and those determinedly inactive (only active zero or one days and not even thinking about becoming regularly active; 9% of respondents). The analysis process is summarised overleaf. Extra analysis to help identify main influences on behaviour was completed (using path modelling). In particular, this was done to check the relevance to New Zealand of two possibilities suggested by the American Cancer Society research (Porter Novelli, 2002): that intrinsic types of motivation might be more important than extrinsic types; and that improvements in physical activity behaviour may tend to come at the expense of improvements with respect to diet (or vice versa). Margins of Error The margin of error is around 2.3% for results about the full Target Group, and 5% to 7% for the six segments (of different sizes) into which it is split. Details are in Appendix II.

5

Path Modelling and Factor Analysis

RESEARCH DESIGN

6

Obstacles to Action

Conceptual OverviewThe following diagram below summarises the major components (behaviour, personal factors, environmental factors) and fundamental interrelationships between them that underlie the differences between segments and that can be influenced to change levels of physical activity (following Maibach 1995 and Bandura 1998).

The first major Personal Factor is perceived benefits. Perceived benefits include views on likely health benefits of physical activity (which are naturally affected by knowledge) as well as other possible outcomes such as looking better, having more energy, feeling more relaxed, and having fun. Motivations are of two main types: intrinsic (e.g. I enjoy physical activity) and extrinsic (e.g. my family wants me to). In addition, peoples confidence about their ability to do a particular physical activity or regular amounts of physical activity (self-efficacy) has been found to be important in changing behaviour. If people are not confident that they can achieve an improved level of physical activity, why should they start trying? Confidence about making improvements can be changed by improving skills and strategies, and by setting appropriate goals. Environmental Factors are mainly discussed in these reports as perceived barriers. These include not only barriers relating to the physical environment but also social barriers such as discouragement from others. Note also all the two-way influences between behaviour, personal factors, and environmental factors. It may be obvious to think of improving physical activity behaviour by changing personal factors (e.g. beliefs about health effects) or environmental factors (e.g. improving facilities). However, one should not overlook the effects in the other direction (e.g. effects of behaviour on perceived benefits). For example, someone who goes for a long walk for the first time after lengthy inactivity may be reminded of how good it feels to be active.

Perceived benefits

Social

e.g. health, enjoyment

e.g. encouragement

Motivations Confidence/Self efficacy Skills & strategies, goals

Physical

e.g. facilities, footpaths

Institutional

e.g. schools, clubs

7

Focusing on Major Influences (Path Modelling)Path ModellingGiven the very large number of factors and questions involved in the study, it is helpful to have some guidance as to which factors might have the greatest influence on physical activity behaviour. To do this, we followed the American Cancer Society example (Porter Novelli, 2002) of using path modelling (a type of regression analysis). Consistent with the American Cancer Society results, we find that self-efficacy (confidence about being able to do specified levels of physical activity) has a strong relationship with levels of physical activity. We also find intrinsic types of motivation (e.g. enjoying physical activity) are significantly related to differences in physical activity levels whereas extrinsic motivations (e.g. doing physical activity to get approval from others) are not. These results suggest that increasing self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation are likely to be useful campaign approaches. Intrinsic motivation is particularly related to differences in health expectancies and other perceived benefits, and hence these might be targeted to increase intrinsic motivation. Selfefficacy is particularly related to several perceived barriers, and hence work on reducing these barriers might help to increase self-efficacy. Further details are contained in the separate Technical Report.

Overview of All SegmentsIdentifying SPARCs Target GroupWe divided the total sample into three broad groups, based on their current level of physical activity and intentions: Inactive Group is active (30 minutes moderate activity or 15 minutes vigorous activity) either zero or one day during the previous week, and has no stated intention of becoming regularly active in the next six months. Active Group is regularly active (i.e. active five or more days a week) already, and has been for more than six months. Target Group is the remainder in the middle. That is, they are not already regularly active (unless for less than the past six months), but they do have some intention of becoming regularly active in the next six months or they were active for two or more days during the previous week. IDENTIFYING THE TARGET GROUPS

8

Obstacles to Action

The Target Group is split into six segments as follows: SEGMENT 1: OTHERS ORIENTED (6% of adults, 170,000) Discouraged by others 97% rate this an influence (3+ on a 7-point scale; no other segment has more than 13% discouraged by others) Strongest extrinsic motivation (e.g. because my family wants me to, because I want others to approve of me) High in Asian and Pacific peoples 27% obese Put off by environmental barriers e.g. cost, facilities no easy to get to, no one to do physical activity with SEGMENT 2: OK FOR NOW (10% of adults, 290,000) Higher than average health (57% rate health very good/ excellent), and they are less often overweight or smokers (17% smoke), male Few worries, low stress, low time pressure Few barriers But see few benefits from physical activity (dont need to change think they are OK as they are) SEGMENT 3: OTHER PRIORITIES (6% of adults, 170,000) Lowest belief in benefits, least motivation Only 16% rate health very good/excellent, 30% smoke Lack commitment e.g. more would rather be doing something else with free time Youngest segment (27% aged 1624 years) SEGMENT 4: BUSY & STRESSED (9% of adults, 270,000) Perceive a lack of time as a barrier to activity 62% lack of time due to work, and 45% lack of time due to family Two thirds female Most stressed Moderate belief in benefits 26% obese SEGMENT 5: SUPPORT SEEKERS (6% of adults, 180,000) 99% say they do not get enough encouragement (other segments 23%44%) Less physically active Have more health problems, 27% obese, 22% depression or mood disorder, 11% anxiety disorder Know that their inactivity is bad for their health, but becoming active is not a priority for many SEGMENT 6: ALMOST THERE (9% of adults, 270,000) Strongest intrinsic motivation (e.g. 50% strongly agree I enjoy physical activity, I care about keeping in shape) Strongest believers that physical activity will deliver benefits, and rate the importance of these benefits highly Most confident that they can be physically active five days per week (average rating of 8.3 where 10 means extremely confident) Barriers generally less of a problem

9

OVERVIEW OF ALL SEGMENTS

Prioritising SegmentsThe Process of EliminationThe process of selecting the two priority segments (from the six segments generated) involved the wider project team, including input from an independent advertising consultant and an applied psychologist. SEGMENTS INITIALLY SCREENED OUT Other Priorities is not an early priority Target Group because their motivations and (non) beliefs in the benefits of physical activity indicate that they would be very difficult to change. Another group, OK For Now is also not a priority, because they perceive that they are reasonably healthy and they appear to be so (e.g. less overweight, fewer smokers, fewer health problems reported). So they are a lower priority in terms of health risks. They have very few barriers but see few benefits in physical activity. Thus, this group might also be a difficult group to change. Almost There is the group most similar to the Active Group. That is, they believe in all the benefits, they are motivated, have high self-efficacy, have few barriers, and are doing some physical activity but not the recommended 30 minutes a day, five days a week. This group, although ripe for the picking, is almost there. It is considered that a specialist campaign is not a priority. POTENTIAL SEGMENTS This leaves three segments: Others Oriented, Busy & Stressed and Support Seekers, which have the highest proportions of obesity (27%, 26% and 27% respectively). Others Oriented is the first obvious segment to target. They are motivated extrinsically, more discouraged by others and have a lot of barriers, particularly environmental barriers. Of particular interest, this segment also has the highest proportion of Pacific and Asian ethnicities. The key distinguishing characteristic of Support Seekers is that they say they do not get enough encouragement (99%). Support Seekers are also more likely to have health problems and are less physically active. The possibility of combining Others Oriented and Support Seekers was briefly discussed, as these two segments are similar on many of the other attributes. However, on closer investigation, these two segments differ enough to warrant/ require quite different campaigns. Thus, Support Seekers are the second segment to profile and target. Detailed reports have been completed for these two priority segments and the Executive Summaries are also included in this Overview Report. Although Busy & Stressed rate perceived lack of time (due to family and due to work) highest and appear the most stressed, they have a lower immediate priority and will be a target in a following year.

10 Obstacles to Action

Related Reports from this StudyThe following reports complement this Overview Report: Profiling Others Oriented Report Profiling Support Seekers Report Technical Report These can be downloaded from our website www.sparc.org.nz. In addition, analysis and reporting focusing on nutrition and eating habits rather than physical activity is in progress for the Cancer Society of New Zealand.

Executive Summary: Others OrientedIntroduction to this SegmentOthers Oriented make up around 6% of the total adult population (approximately 170,000) and the following description is based on 398 respondents. This segment has several distinctive features: Nearly all (97%) report some influence of discouragement from others (rating 3 or more on a 7-point scale 2 ), and 38% are clearly influenced (a rating of 5 or more) More perceived barriers to physical activity than for other segments One in three are Asian or Pacific peoples A comparatively high proportion of the segment are people who are obese or overweight

Demographic DifferencesThe Others Oriented segment contains a higher proportion of Asian and Pacific peoples than all other segments (Fig.1). Hence both the activities and communication methods of any initiatives directed at this segment need to be culturally appropriate to these ethnic groups. FIG.1 ETHNICITY

2

Where 1 = Doesnt influence me at all and 7 = Influences me a lot

11

Sensitivity to OthersA defining issue for this segment is that nearly all (97%) report some influence of discouragement from others (Fig.2). However, Others Oriented are not much more likely to report a lack of encouragement. In a separate question about overall encouragement 3, 42% of Others Oriented rated the overall amount of encouragement they get as about right (compared with 39% of the Target Group) (Fig.3). Significantly more people in Others Oriented (13%) rate the overall amount of encouragement they get as more than about right than in the Target Group overall (7%). This suggests that, rather than simply receiving more discouragement and less encouragement, this segment is more sensitive to support from others (whether discouragement or encouragement). FIG.2 INFLUENCE OF DISCOURAGEMENT FROM OTHERS FIG.4 WHEN I AM PHYSICALLY ACTIVE, IT IS BECAUSE

A third set of questions on extrinsic motivations (e.g. wanting to be approved of by others) confirms Others Orienteds greater sensitivity to others relative to the Target Group overall, as the above chart shows (Fig.4).

Perceived BarriersOthers Oriented have many perceived barriers to physical activity. (These were rated on a 7-point scale where 1 means doesnt influence me at all and 7 means influences me a lot.) The perceived barriers can be loosely combined into three groups: commitment barriers, community barriers and physical barriers. Figure 5 overleaf shows that Others Oriented rate many of these barriers more highly (as an influence keeping them from being physically active) than any other segment.

FIG.3 AMOUNT OF ENCOURAGEMENT OVERALL

Three in ten Others Oriented find physical activity uncomfortable. Arthritis and other health problems are more commonly a clear barrier (34%) for this segment. Also, almost three in ten do not like to feel out of breath, dont like other people seeing them active, and think physical activity takes too much effort. These are especially issues for the obese in this segment. Few will choose to walk 1.5km (in favourable conditions) quite often or almost always (31% compared with 62% of the Active Group).

3

Two separate questions were included in the questionnaire Discouragement: The following is a list of possible things that keep some people from being physically active. For each one, please indicate how much each influences your own activity level. (1=Doesnt influence me at all, 7=Influences me a lot.) Encouragement: Overall, would you say the amount of encouragement you get is... (1=Not enough, 4=About right, 7=Too much.)

12 Obstacles to Action

FIG.5 PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND EXCUSES

Others Oriented appear to have more limited options for increasing physical activity, because they are: lacking others to exercise with,and have a heightened sensitivity to others (which is apparent by the influence of discouragement from others) lacking knowledge half rate I dont know how to be physically active as an influence (rating 3 or more on a 7-point scale) compared with only one in five for the Target Group overall likely to believe their environment is threatening. They are more likely to identify things in their neighbourhood that put them off being physically active. Specifically, around a third say that they are put off being physically active by dog nuisance, traffic that is too heavy, and not enough street lighting financially constrained consider facilities are hard to get to. This could be because of lack of awareness (e.g. language barriers) or access problems.

Perceived Benefits and MotivationsOthers Oriented believe in the importance of health benefits and other benefits of physical activity, and also that many of these benefits are likely to result from physical activity. These rating levels are similar to the Target Group overall and even to the Active Group. Their level of intrinsic motivation (e.g. enjoying physical activity) is also similar to that for the Target Group overall. Tangible rewards/interventions: Others Oriented report that they would be more physically active for tangible rewards. In particular, the following tangible rewards are most attractive to Others Oriented and received the highest ratings of all segments: If they could get a free or low-cost gym membership, three in five claim they are likely to be more active Between a quarter and a third claim they are likely to be more active if: they thought it would get their children more active they could get a free pamphlet on how to be physically active they could call a toll free number to get advice from an expert they could get someone to watch their children.

13

Confidence/Self-efficacyOnly one in six Others Oriented are highly confident (rating 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) that they can become physically active five days per week for at least 30 minutes a day (in the next month). However, 55% are at least moderately confident (ratings of 610 on a 10-point scale) that they can achieve this target. Further there is a subgroup of two in five Others Oriented who are moderately confident they can achieve the target level 4 of physical activity and also report that they enjoy physical activity.

NutritionFruit consumption for Others Oriented is similar to the levels noted among the Target Group overall. However, those in the Others Oriented segment have the lowest consumption of vegetables, with 13% eating none or one serving a day. Only 43% eat the recommended three or more servings of vegetables daily (cf. 61% of the Target Group). Others Oriented have the highest percentage ratings on almost all the perceived barriers to eating fruit and vegetables. They are easily discouraged and are put off by problems related to availability, cost, and convenience.

HealthFewer Others Oriented than other groups rate their own health as excellent or very good (26% compared with 40% of the Target Group overall). Overall, those in the Others Oriented segment are the least likely to have visited a doctor or nurse in the last 12 months. This may be more a reflection of lower socio-economic status than good health. Others Oriented contains a relatively high proportion of people who are obese (27%) or overweight (24%).

Summary DiagramThe diagram overleaf (Fig.6) summarises particularly distinctive features of the Others Oriented segment, together with a few important related characteristics. At the centre of the diagram (labelled as the Core Value) is Sensitivity to Others. This is the common link between several of the highly distinctive characteristics of this segment in the Feelings and Beliefs layer such as: are influenced by discouragement from others, want approval from others, perceive pressure from others, and want others to see that they can do physical activity. The Feelings and Beliefs layer also highlights some of the large number of perceived barriers that affect this segment more than others in the Target Group. In particular, more Others Oriented admit to not knowing how to be physically active. The observable Physical layer also highlights some interesting characteristics of Others Oriented, such as the fact that many are obese or overweight, and that one in three are Asian or Pacific peoples.

Health InformationAs a source of health information, over three quarters of Others Oriented trust their doctor, and around half trust their doctors nurse, dietitian, their local hospital and well established health organisations (such as the Heart Foundation, 64%; Cancer Society, 52%; Diabetes New Zealand, 51%). In general, women are more trusting of these well-established health organisations than men. Trust was lower in SPARC (37%) or Regional Sports Trusts (28%). Over half of Others Oriented are interested in learning about how to stay healthy (57%) and health information on physical activity/exercise (55%). Furthermore, many are also interested in: Nutrition/food choices (48%) Weight control (46%) Improving sleep (45%) Stress management (42%)

4

Target level is five days physical activity per week for at least 30 minutes a day.

14 Obstacles to Action

FIG.6 OTHERS ORIENTATED: SUMMARY

15

Executive Summary: Support SeekersKey Findings: Support SeekersSupport Seekers are about 6% of the adult population. Report results are based on 529 respondents in this segment. A perceived barrier, lack of encouragement, strongly distinguishes this segment from others: 99% of the segment feel that they do not get enough encouragement compared with 39% for the Target Group overall (Fig.7). More specifically, this segment reports clearly less encouragement from several of the most common sources for others: their spouse/partner, their family/whnau /children, and their close friends. Their doctor/healthcare provider was the only source of encouragement for whom their ratings were similar to the Target Group overall. Consistent with this, more Support Seekers than any other segment rated interventions such as Someone agreed to support me/check on my progress and I had someone to go with as very likely to increase their physical activity. Apart from lacking someone to do physical activity with, other perceived barriers important for this segment include lack of time and energy, lack of commitment, and cost (Fig.8). Three in five rate lack of energy/too tired highly as a constraint keeping them from being physically active (in contrast to only a third of the Target Group overall). For this segment, the cause is more often work (57%) rather than lack of time due to family responsibilities (37%). Three in five also see themselves as being under a lot of stress lately (compared with half of the Target Group overall, and only two in five of those in the Active Group). The major commitment barrier is the difficulty they report in sticking to a routine (63%, compared with 43% for the Target Group overall). One in five rate costs too much (clothes, equipment, etc.) highly as an influence (cf. one in eight in the Target Group overall). The large number of barriers partly explain why Support Seekers are the least active of all six segments (1.9 days active per week, versus 2.7 days for the Target Group overall). FIG.7 AMOUNT OF ENCOURAGEMENT

FIG.8 PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND EXCUSES

Perceived Benefits and MotivationsThis segment already know that regular physical activity decreases the risk of heart disease (nine in ten agree), and at a personal level accept that regular physical activity will help them to live a healthy life (96% agree). Despite this, only one in five claim that they get enough physical activity to keep them healthy. Even fewer (one in ten) claim that they get enough exercise according to the recommended guidelines. However, this knowledge has proved insufficient to motivate them into healthy levels of physical activity despite health problems being relatively common. For example, one in three rate their health as only Fair or Poor, around twice the level for these ratings compared with others in the Target Group. Thus, other perceived benefits and motivations need further investigation to help change their behaviour.

16 Obstacles to Action

Fortunately, this segment also accepts that several other benefits are likely to result from regular physical activity. These include feeling good about themselves (91%), having more energy (89%), and losing or maintaining weight (83%). In addition, at least four in five from this segment rate each of these perceived benefits as important to them. Given that intrinsic motivations such as having fun are probably an important driver of maintaining physical activity levels, it is good to know that two thirds rate themselves as likely to have fun as a result of regular physical activity, and nine in ten rate this benefit as important to them.

Mental HealthA further highly distinctive feature of this group is that fully 22% self-report depression or mood disorder and 11% report anxiety disorder. These rates are around twice as high as for others in the Target Group overall (Fig.9). Given the evidence about the value of physical activity in reducing depression and anxiety, it seems particularly important to help these people increase the activity level. In addition, for some, the improvements in mood may be the type of success experiences that will help build the confidence/self-efficacy required to maintain regular physical activity. Also note that Support Seekers have relatively poor physical health (34% rate their health in general as Fair or Poor compared with 18% in the Target Group overall).

Low Confidence/Self-efficacySupport Seekers are distinctly low in the confidence/ self-efficacy to start regular physical activity in the next month (an average confidence rating of 5.0 out of 10, compared with 6.1 for the Target Group overall and 8.6 for the Active Group). Only one in eight are highly confident they can reach target levels of activity (ratings of 9 or 10). The results suggest the following might be useful to increase their confidence, by giving them success experiences or perhaps by introducing them to practical skills and strategies for working regular physical activity into their life: Introduce them to ways that provide the social support and encouragement they want. (Three in five rate themselves as likely to be more physically active if they had someone to go with or if someone agreed to sponsor them/check on their progress; both these results are around 20 percentage points higher than for the Target Group overall.) Around 30% say they will use walking groups if they are available. skills for helping them keep to a routine (this is a major commitment barrier for them) or to find time (two thirds rate themselves as likely to be more physically active if they had an extra hour free time). This indicates the need to help them build new achievable routines which include physical activity or to adapt existing routines (e.g. replacing some regular short car trips by walking). encouraging appropriate activity types for the obese (27% of Support Seekers are obese) or those with minor health problems (28% report hayfever/seasonal allergies, 19% high blood pressure, and 17% high cholesterol). This segment shows relatively high interest in health information with over 60% indicating interest in health information on weight control, physical activity/exercise, and nutrition/food choices.

DemographicsSupport Seekers have some demographic differences compared with the Target Group. The most distinctive demographic characteristics are: 65% women (cf. 59% in the Target Group overall) 63% aged 2549 (cf. 54% in Target Group) 16% Mori (cf. 12% in Target Group) 53% working full-time (cf. 48% in Target Group) 44% with a child under 18 years old living in their home (cf. 37% in Target Group) 53% in large cities (cf. 46% in Target Group) FIG.9 KEY FEATURES

17

Summary DiagramThe following summary diagram (Fig.10) highlights particularly distinctive features of Support Seekers, together with a few important related characteristics. At the centre of the diagram is the Core Need: Support for coping strategies. Support is central because insufficient encouragement from others was reported by 99% of the segment. We suggest that more support from others should be particularly directed towards helping with coping strategies: Coping because these people are already under pressure as shown by their more common reports of feeling stressed, lacking time and energy, and the lack of time for physical activity because of work (not to mention less common, but comparatively higher, reports of depression and anxiety). Strategies because improvement for many in this group is likely to relate more to mental skills/strategies such as time management, prioritising, and careful goal-setting, rather than physical skills. The second layer of the diagram, Feelings and Beliefs, is relatively crowded, reflecting the dominance of psychological factors in the segmentation. Fewer major characteristics of the segment are directly observable in the Physical layer.

FIG.10 SUPPORT SEEKERS: SUMMARY

18 Obstacles to Action

Appendix I ACNielsen Quality AssuranceQuality AssuranceACNielsen is committed to the principles of Total Quality Management, and in 1995 achieved certification under the International Standards Organisation ISO 9001 code. The company maintains rigorous standards of quality control in all areas of operation. Furthermore, ACNielsen is routinely and regularly subjected to independent external auditing of all aspects of its survey operations.

ISO 9001In terms of this project, all processes involved are covered by our ISO 9001 procedures.

Code of EthicsAll research conducted by ACNielsen conforms with the Code of Professional Behaviour of the Market Research Society of New Zealand.

19

Appendix II Margins of ErrorPrecision in GeneralBecause we have only taken a sample of New Zealand adults, any results represented for this population will have a margin of error. Two issues need be considered with respect to precision of results and margins of error for segmentation results like these: The judgemental component of segmentation. The large amount of judgement rather than statistics involved in the segmentation process means that margins of error are not calculable for the fundamental split into segments (and relatedly, the size of each segment). For example, no clear statistical criterion prevented us from choosing a split into four segments rather than six or from clustering 20 key variables rather than 13. Weighting. Results are weighted to correct for the probability of selection and sample imbalances (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity) as described in detail in the Technical Report. Such weighting typically results in margins of error distinctly larger than those for a simple random sample of the same size.

Indicative Margins of ErrorThe indicative margins of error provided below are those that would apply for a simple random sample of the effective sample size shown. As described in the weighting section of the Technical Report, the effective sample size (for the full sample) is approximately half the actual (unweighted) sample size. This does not take sample stratification or weighting non-linearities into account, but these are not expected to have had a major effect. For the rim-weighting procedure used, more precise margin of error calculations would be time-consuming and hence expensive; incurring these extra costs was not seen as worthwhile given that the focus of the study is on segmentation rather than, for example, prevalence estimates. The reports commonly compare results from a segment to the Target Group overall. The margin of error for such differences is slightly larger again (because of the additional sampling error in the Target Group estimate). For example, an indicative margin of error for difference between the Others Oriented segment versus others in the Target Group (n=3685398=3287) where both estimates are around 50% is 7.4% rather than the 6.9% in the table above (for a standalone estimate from the Others Oriented segment).

Table 1: Indicative margins of error Others Oriented Actual sample size Effective sample size (approx.) Estimate in report 50% 40% or 60% 30% or 70% 20% or 80% 10% or 90% 5% or 95% Note: 95% confidence level used. 6.9% 6.8% 6.4% 5.6% 4.2% 3.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.5% 4.8% 3.6% 2.6% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 1.8% 1.4% 1.0% 398 199 Support Seekers 529 265 Target Group 3685 1843

20 Obstacles to Action

Appendix III ReferencesBandura, A. 1998. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology and Health, 13, 623649. Bauman, A., McLean, G., Hurdle, D., Walker, S., Boyd, J., van Aalst, I., & Carr, H. 2003. Evaluation of the National Push Play campaign in New Zealandcreating population awareness of physical activity. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 116 no. 1179. Maibach, E.W. & Cotton, D. 1995. Moving people to behaviour change: a staged social cognitive approach to message design. In Maibach, E., & Parrott, R.L. (Eds.). Designing health messages: Approaches from communication theory and public health practice. California: Sage Publications. Porter Novelli. 2002. NuPA Target Audience Report #1 (Women in Motion 4054). Prepared for the American Cancer Society (Draft). SPARC. 2003. SPARC Facts: Results of the New Zealand Sport and Physical Activity Surveys (19972001). Wellington: SPARC.