Search

Background: There is convincing evidence that unhealthy food marketing is extensive on television and in digital media, uses powerful persuasive techniques, and impacts dietary choices and consumption, particularly in children. It is less clear whether this is also the case for outdoor food marketing. This review (i) identifies common criteria used to define outdoor food marketing, (ii) summarises research methodologies used, (iii) identifies available evidence on the exposure, power (i.e. persuasive creative strategies within marketing) and impact of outdoor food marketing on behaviour and health and (iv) identifies knowledge gaps and directions for future research., Methods: A systematic search was conducted of Medline (Ovid), Scopus, Science Direct, Proquest, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a number of grey literature sources. Titles and abstracts were screened by one researcher. Relevant full texts were independently checked by two researchers against eligibility criteria., Results: Fifty-three studies were conducted across twenty-one countries. The majority of studies (n = 39) were conducted in high-income countries. All measured the extent of exposure to outdoor food marketing, twelve also assessed power and three measured impact on behavioural or health outcomes. Criteria used to define outdoor food marketing and methodologies adopted were highly variable across studies. Almost a quarter of advertisements across all studies were for food (mean of 22.1%) and the majority of advertised foods were unhealthy (mean of 63%). The evidence on differences in exposure by SES is heterogenous, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions, however the research suggests that ethnic minority groups have a higher likelihood of exposure to food marketing outdoors. The most frequent persuasive creative strategies were premium offers and use of characters. There was limited evidence on the relationship between exposure to outdoor food marketing and eating behaviour or health outcomes., Conclusions: This review highlights the extent of unhealthy outdoor food marketing globally and the powerful methods used within this marketing. There is a need for consistency in defining and measuring outdoor food marketing to enable comparison across time and place. Future research should attempt to measure direct impacts on behaviour and health., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: With the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions imposed to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the Brazilian population has increased the time spent at home and watching television (TV). Since food advertising exposure is a key driver of food choices, this study described the content of food advertisements (ads) on Brazilian TV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This is an exploratory study. A total of 684 h of TV programming comprised of three free-to-air channels and two pay-per-view channels was recorded from 06 a.m. to 12 a.m. for eight non-consecutive days in June 2020. A content analysis of all the food-related ads was carried out. The data collection process followed INFORMAS Protocol for TV food advertising monitoring. Results: The sample was composed of 7,083 ads, 752 (10.6%) of which were food-related and 487 (6.9%) were promoting ultra-processed foods. The content analysis indicated seven thematic categories, all of them with reference to the COVID-19 pandemic: brand and product differentials (79.8%); visual and sound effects (70.2%); thematic campaigns (56.0%); digitization (22.9%); convenience (16.5%); economic benefits (11.9%); and commensality and social interaction (6.1%). Ads content varied according to the day of the week, the time of the day, the length of the ad, and the channel type. Conclusions: The thematic of food advertising on Brazilian TV during the COVID-19 pandemic is aligned with the country's health crisis context and varied during the programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Exposure to advertising of unhealthy commodities such as fast-food and gambling is recognised as a risk factor for developing non-communicable diseases. Assessment of the impact of such advertisement and the evaluation of the impact of any policies to restrict such advertisements on public health are reliant on the quality of the exposure assessment. A straightforward method for assessing exposure is to ask people whether they noticed any such advertisements in their neighbourhoods. However, the validity of this method is unclear. We assessed the associations between measured exposure to outdoor advertising, self-reported exposure, and self-reported consumption. Methods: We collected exposure information in January-March 2022 using two methods: (i) through a resident survey investigating advertising and consumption of unhealthy products, distributed across Bristol and neighbouring South Gloucestershire, and (ii) through in-person auditing. Self-reported exposure was obtained from the resident survey (N = 2,560) and measured exposure from photos obtained for all Council owned advertisement sites (N = 973 bus stops). Both data sources were geographically linked at lower-super-output-area level. Reporting ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and Cohen's kappas, are presented. Results: 24% of advertisements displayed food and/or drink advertising. Bristol respondents in neighbourhoods displaying food/drink adverts were more likely to also report seeing these adverts compared to those in neighbourhoods without food/drink adverts (59% vs. 51%, RR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.01–1.31). There was no such association in South Gloucestershire (26% vs. 32%, RR = 0.82, 95%CI 0.58–1.14). Respondents in both Bristol and South Gloucestershire who recalled seeing advertising for unhealthy food and drink products were more likely to consume them (e.g. for fast-food: 22% vs. 11%, RR = 2.01, 95%CI 1.68–2.42). There was no such association between measured food and drink adverts in respondents' local areas and self-reported consumption of HFSS product (90.1% vs. 90.7%, RR = 0.99, 95%CI 0.96–1.03). Conclusions: Self-reported outdoor advertisement exposure is correlated with measured exposure, making this a useful methodology for population studies. It has the added advantage that it correlates with consumption. However, given that measurement error can be significant and self-reported exposure is known to be susceptible to various biases, inferences from studies using this exposure metric should be made with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health bodies in Australia remain concerned about marketing of unhealthy commodities; namely unhealthy food, alcohol and gambling products. Children are particularly susceptible to the influence of unhealthy commodity marketing. This study explored adults' perceptions of unhealthy commodities sponsorship in elite sport and policies to restrict them.Methods: Four focus groups of 7-8 frequent sport spectators were recruited, including parents and non-parents, and located in inner and outer suburbs of Sydney, Australia. Results were analysed thematically.Results: Participants identified the contradictions of healthy messages of sport and unhealthy commodities, while highlighting the commercial value of sport sponsorship to sporting clubs. There is concern around children's exposure to effective and integrated marketing techniques when viewing sport, which encouraged unhealthy habits. Support for restricting sponsorship related to perceived product harm, with gambling viewed as having the greatest health impact. Participants were supportive of policies that reduced exposure of unhealthy commodities to children, but were concerned about the financial risk to sporting clubs. Governments and sports associations were identified as holding responsibility for enacting changes.Conclusion: A number of options were identified for advocates to gain public and political traction to reduce unhealthy commodity sponsorship. There is potential for shifts away from unhealthy sponsorship by both governments and sports associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are a range of interventions designed to promote healthier food choices in full-service restaurants. However, it is unclear how these interventions affect dietary choices in people of lower and higher socioeconomic position (SEP).Methods: A total of 2091 US participants recruited online completed Study 1 (n = 1001) and Study 2 (n = 1090). Recruitment was stratified by participant highest education level, resulting in higher SEP and lower SEP groups. In a between-subjects design, participants made hypothetical food choices (main dish, plus optional sides and desserts) from six restaurants menus in the absence vs. presence of menu energy labelling and from menus with baseline (10%) vs. increased availability (50%) of lower energy main dishes. Data were collected and analysed in 2019. Two studies were conducted in order to examine replicability and generalisability of findings across different restaurant menu types.Results: Across both studies, increasing the availability of lower energy main menu options decreased the average energy content of the ordered main dish (- 129 kcal, 95% CI [- 139; - 119]) and total energy ordered (- 117 kcal, 95% CI [- 138; - 95]) in both higher and lower SEP participants. Energy labelling significantly reduced the energy content of ordered main dishes in higher SEP participants (- 41 kcal, 95% CI [- 54; - 29]), but not lower SEP participants (- 5 kcal, 95% CI [- 22; 11]). However, energy labelling reduced total energy ordered (- 83 kcal, 95% CI [- 105; - 60]) irrespective of SEP.Conclusions: In two virtual experiments, increasing the availability of lower energy restaurant main menu options impacted on main menu dish choice and decreased total energy ordered irrespective of SEP. Energy labelling had a less pronounced effect on total energy ordered and had a larger impact on the energy content of main menu dish choice in higher as opposed to lower SEP participants.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04336540 retrospectively registered (7 April, 2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]