The OSCA general population survey was undertaken with 500 respondents located in
Birmingham, Newcastle, London and the south-east of England. Some of the key characteristics of respondents, compared with the MOPSU and general population as reported in the 2001 Census, are provided in Tables 41–52.
Table 41 shows that the distribution of males and females was consistent across OSCA, MOPSU
and the 2001 Census.
Table 42 shows there was good distribution across age categories in our samples. It is notable that
the survey samples slightly over-represent those aged 50–64 years and those aged 65–79 years, but under-represent those aged ≥ 80 years. The under-representation of this oldest age band is
TABLE 41 Gender distribution
Gender
OSCA MOPSU Total
Population (%)
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Male 245 49 241 47.0 486 48 48.6
Female 255 51 272 53.0 527 52 51.3
Total 500 100 513 100 1013 100
[Population: Office for National Statistics mid-2008 estimate, table 4 (England)].
TABLE 42 Age distribution
Age (years)
OSCA MOPSU Total
Population (%)
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
18–24 57 11.4 57 11.5 114 11.3 12.1 25–30 54 10.8 61 11.9 115 11.4 10.1 31–39 89 17.8 70 13.6 159 15.7 15.8 40–49 78 15.6 98 19.1 176 17.4 18.8 50–64 121 24.2 132 25.7 253 25.0 22.8 65–69 37 7.4 84 16.4 165 16.3 14.7 70–79 44 8.8 80–89 19 3.8 11 2.1 31 3.1 5.8 ≥ 90 1 0.2 Total 500 100 513 100 1013 100 100
136 Appendix 6
not entirely surprising as these are harder-to-reach individuals. The distribution of the pooled samples is broadly representative of the general population.
Table 43 shows that, compared with the 2001 Census data, respondents were slightly more likely
than the general population to have no formal education or to have post-school qualifications. As shown in Table 44, only nine out of 1013 respondents belonged to the highest SEG. More than half of the respondents belonged to band C. Again, the distribution is broadly consistent across the two surveys. When compared with the general population, the OSCA sample includes a greater proportion of individuals in band C2 or higher and lower proportions of people in bands D and E.
Table 45 shows that in both survey samples the proportion of respondents that reported being
divorced are notably higher than would be expected from the Census data. However, the samples appear to be otherwise broadly representative.
Table 46 shows that the samples under-represent both those working full time and those
classifying themselves as full- or part-time students. The samples significantly over-represent those who are retired. This latter observation is interesting, given that the age distribution of
TABLE 43 Level of education
Education
OSCA MOPSU Total
Population (%)
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
No formal qualification 128 25.6 123 24.0 251 24.8 18.9
GCSE/O-level 148 29.6 152 29.6 300 29.6 34.4
A-levels or equivalent 75 15 52 10.1 127 12.5 12.4
Professional qualification below
degree level 75 15 93 18.1 168 16.6 8.7
Degree level qualification or
equivalent 52 10.4 65 12.7 117 11.6 7.8
Higher degree 12 2.4 16 3.1 28 2.8 3.5
Other 10 2 12 2.3 22 2.2 14.4
Total 500 100 513 100 1013 100 100
[Population: 2001 Census, National report for England and Wales, table S115 (England and Wales)].
TABLE 44 Socioeconomic status
Band
OSCA MOPSU Total
Population (%)
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
A 5 1 4 0.8 9 0.9 22.0 B 123 24.6 111 21.6 234 23.1 C1 145 29 141 27.5 286 28.2 29.7 C2 96 19.2 126 24.6 222 22 15.1 D 59 11.8 68 13.3 127 12.5 17.2 E 72 14.4 61 11.9 133 13.1 16.1 Not stated 2 0.4 2 0.2 – Total 500 100 513 100 1013 100 100
TABLE 45 Marital status
Status
OSCA MOPSU Total
Population (%)
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Married, or equivalent 285 57 Married 248 48.3 597 58.9 51.6
Living together 64 12.5 9.9
Never been married, or
equivalent 111 22.2 Single 101 19.7 212 20.9 23.1
Separated (from spouse or
partner) 18 3.6 Separated 11 2.1 29 2.9 1.9
Divorced 44 8.8 Divorced 42 8.2 86 8.5 5.9
Widowed/surviving partner 42 8.4 Widowed 45 8.8 87 8.6 7.6
Refused/don’t know Refused/don’t
know 2 0.4 2 0.2 –
Total 500 513 1013 100 100
[Population: 2001 Census, Key Statistics for Health Areas, table KS03 (England)].
TABLE 46 Employment status
Status
OSCA MOPSU Total
Population (%)
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Working full time (≥ 30 hours a week) 176 35.2 206 40.2 382 37.7 49.1 Working part time (< 30 hours a week) 65 13 65 12.7 130 12.8 11.8
Full-time student 19 3.8 16 3.1 35 3.5 7.3
Part-time student 4 0.8 5 1.0 9 0.9
Not working – looking for work 28 5.6 23 4.5 51 5.0 3.4
Not working – not looking for work 10 2 10 1.9 20 2.0
Not working – unable for medical reasons 31 6.2 23 4.5 54 5.3 5.3
Retired 120 24 125 24.4 245 24.2 13.5
Looking after home 35 7 37 7.2 72 7.1 6.5
Other 12 2.4 3 0.6 15 1.5 3.1
Total 500 100 513 100 1013 100 100
[Population: 2001 Census, Key Statistics for Health Areas, table KS09 (England)].
TABLE 47 Ethnicity
Ethnicity
OSCA MOPSU Total
Population (%)
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
White 422 84.4 419 81.7 841 83.0 90.9
Asian 39 7.8 51 9.9 90 8.9 5.0
Black 24 4.8 32 6.2 56 5.5 2.3
Any other background 14 2.8 11 2.1 25 2.5 1.8
Declined to answer 1 0.2 1 0.1 -
Total 500 100 513 100 1013 100 100
138 Appendix 6
the sample appears to be broadly representative; this would suggest that we have a significantly higher proportion of people that have taken early retirement than would have otherwise been expected.
The ethnic profile of the sample (Table 47) is encouraging, and in fact under-represents white individuals and over-represents Asian and black individuals. This is useful, as it provides more data to power an analysis of the impact of ethnicity on preferences.
Table 48 shows the number of children under the age of 16 years who live in the household.
Reflecting other characteristics of the samples, there is under-representation of households with children.
Table 49 shows the annual household income distribution of respondents. It is noteworthy that
the level of refusal was reduced significantly between the MOPSU and OSCA study, which is believed to be the result of a change in the interviewer briefing instructions. The income bands used between the studies are not aligned, so it is difficult to make comparisons; however, it would appear that the survey samples under-represent higher-income households, probably reflecting the employment status of our samples.
Table 50 shows the composition of the samples by area of residence, although it should be noted
that we would not expect the sample to be representative within these classifications, as it was recruited from four distinct geographic areas.
Table 51 shows how respondents rated their health at the time of the interview. The health status
looks to be broadly the same across the OSCA and MOPSU samples, with the combined sample having 73.2% of respondents who rated their health being good or better. Only four respondents claimed to have very bad health.
Finally, Table 52 suggests that the sample under-represents those stating that they were receiving disabled person’s tax credit, housing benefit and pension credit. It is not clear whether this under- representation is a genuine skew in the sample or whether there is an issue related to respondents not being willing to state which benefits they were claiming (which in some cases they might not be formally entitled to claim).
The samples in the OSCA and MOPSU surveys were very similar, and broadly consistent with the population in all of these observable dimensions.