Official Statistics

2021-22 Annual Participation Report Revisions Note

Updated 30 November 2023

Applies to England

21st December 2022 update: Due to a change in the way we have calculated confidence intervals, we have made some minor revisions to the confidence intervals published in both the tables and the report.

The conclusions we previously made for instances where we stated that there were no significant differences, but have now been changed to show a significant difference are:

1. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that there were no significant differences in ethnicities in terms of adult engagement in arts. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults who identified as from a Chinese ethnic group (88%) engaged more physically with the arts than all other Asian backgrounds (62%-77%) with the exception of adults who identified as from the any other Asian background category (79%).  This was a similar pattern for digital arts engagement where adults who identified as from a Chinese ethnic group (37%) engaged more digitally than all other Asian backgrounds (16%-23%) with the exception of adults who identified as from the any other Asian background category (27%).

2. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that there were no significant differences in art engagement between adults living in rural or urban settings. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults living in rural settings (89%) were more likely to engage physically with the arts than those in urban settings (86%).

3. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that there were no significant region or county differences in either physical or digital engagement with libraries. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults from London (19%) were more likely to engage with libraries physically than adults from any other region with the exception of the East of England (16%). Adults from London (16%) were more likely to engage digitally with libraries than any other region with the exception of adults from the South East (14%).

4. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that for gender there were no significant differences in heritage engagement. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that for digital engagement, adults who identified as males (22%) had significantly higher engagement than adults who identified as females (18%). There were no significant differences in physical engagement between genders.

5. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that for ethnicity there were no significant differences in heritage engagement. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults who identified as from a Bangladeshi ethnic group (39%) engaged less physically than adults from all other Asian backgrounds (53%-65%) with the exception for adults who identified as from a Pakistani ethnic group (43%).

6. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that there were no significant region or county differences in either physical and digital heritage engagement. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults from the South West (69%) were more likely to engage with heritage sites physically than adults from any other region, with the exception of the South East (67%). Adults from London (24%) were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector than any other region with the exception of the South East (22%) or South West (21%).

7. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that there were no significant region or county differences in England in terms of engagement with domestic tourism. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults from London (50%) were less likely to go on a domestic holiday in England than any other region (52% - 59%), with the exception of the North East (53%).

8. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that for internet usage, there were no significant differences in terms of gender. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults who identified as males (94%) were significantly more likely to use the internet than adults who identified as females (92%).

9. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that for internet usage, there were no significant differences in terms of ethnicity. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults who identified to be from an Irish ethnic background (87%) were significantly less likely to use the internet than all other white backgrounds (93%-97%).

10. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that for internet usage, there were no significant region or county differences in England in terms of using the internet. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults from the West Midlands (90%) were less likely to use the internet than adults from any other region (92%-94%), with the exception of the North East (90%).

11. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that for gender there were no significant differences in terms of digital or online skills training. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that adults who identified as males (21%) were more likely to have engaged with digital or online skills training than those who identified as females (19%).

12. Using the original confidence intervals, we concluded that there were no significant region or county differences in England and attendance in live sporting events. Using our updated confidence intervals, we conclude that whilst there are no significant differences between regions, there are many between different ITL2 areas, for instance adults from Inner London – West (25%) were more likely to attend a live sporting event than adults from Inner London – East (16%).

In addition, we have made two corrections. Specifically:

• An incorrect figure of 15% was given for the percentage of arts digital engagement of those who live in the social rented sector. This has now been corrected to 19%. This was correct in the tables, but incorrectly transcribed in the annual report.

• The sentence “Those who identified as being disabled were more likely to have not heard of 5G (6%) than those who identified as not being disabled (8%)” was incorrectly included in the 5G section of the report. This has now been updated to “Those who identified as being disabled were more likely to have not heard of 5G (8%) than those who identified as not being disabled (6%)”. This was correct in the tables, but incorrectly transcribed in the annual report.