Search

Objective: To assess associations between self-reported advertising exposure to foods high in fats, salt and sugar and household purchases of energy, nutrients and specific product categories., Design: A cross-sectional design was used. Advertising exposure data were gathered using a questionnaire administered to the main shopper of each household, and purchase data from supermarkets and other stores for these households were accessed for a 4-week period during February 2019., Setting: Households in London and the North of England., Participants: Representative households ( N 1289) from the Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods Panel. Main shoppers were predominantly female (71 %), with a mean age of 54 years (±13)., Results: Linear regression models identified that exposure to foods high in fats, salt and sugar advertising through traditional mediums (including broadcast and print), but not digital, transport, recreational or functional mediums, was associated with greater purchases of energy (9779 kcal; 95 % CI 3515, 16 043), protein (416 g; 95 % CI 161, 671), carbohydrate (1164 g; 95 % CI 368, 1886) and sugar (514 g; 95 % CI 187, 841). Generalised linear models showed that individuals who reported exposure to sugary drink advertising were more likely to purchase sugary drinks (1·16; 95 % CI 2·94, 4·99) but did not purchase more energy or nutrients from sugary drinks. There was no evidence of associations between exposure to advertising for sugary cereals or sweet snacks and purchases from these categories., Conclusions: There was a strong influence of traditional advertising and sugar-sweetened beverage advertising on household food and drink purchases, thus supporting the need for advertising restrictions across traditional formats and for sugary drinks specifically.

Objectives: To assess primary impact of selective Licensing (SL), an area-based intervention in the private rented housing market, on individual self-reported anxiety and neighbourhood mental health (MHI-Mental Healthcare Index) and secondary impacts on antisocial behaviour (ASB), population turnover and self-reported well-being., Design: Difference-in-difference (DiD) was used to evaluate effects of SL schemes initiated 2012-2018. 921 intervention areas (lower super output areas) were matched 3:1 using propensity scores derived from sociodemographic and housing variables (N=3.684 including controls). Average treatment effect on treated (ATT) was calculated for multiple time period DiD in area-level analyses. Canonical DiD was used for individual-level analysis by year of treatment initiation while adjusting for age, sex, native birth and occupational class., Setting: Intervention neighbourhoods and control areas in Greater London, UK, 2011-2019., Participants: We sampled 4474 respondents renting privately in intervention areas (N=17 347 including controls) in Annual Population Survey and obtained area-level MHI population data., Interventions: Private landlords in SL areas must obtain a licence from the local authority, allow inspection and maintain minimum housing standards., Results: ATT after 5 years was significantly lower for MHI (-7.5%, 95% CI -5.6% to -8.8%) than controls. Antidepressant treatment days per population reduced by -5.4% (95% CI -3.7% to -7.3), mental health benefit receipt by -9.6% (95% CI -14% to -5.5%) and proportion with depression by -12% (95% CI -7.7% to -16.3%). ASB reduced by -15% (95% CI -21% to -8.2%). Population turnover increased by 26.5% (95% CI 22.1% to 30.8%). Sensitivity analysis suggests overlap with effects of London 2012 Olympic regeneration. No clear patterns were observed for self-reported anxiety., Conclusions: We found associations between SL and reductions in area-based mental healthcare outcomes and ASB, while population turnover increased. A national evaluation of SL is feasible and necessary., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Policies aimed at restricting the marketing of high fat, salt and sugar products have been proposed as one way of improving population diet and reducing obesity. In 2019, Transport for London implemented advertising restrictions on high fat, salt and sugar products. A controlled interrupted time-series analysis comparing London with a north of England control, suggested that the advertising restrictions had resulted in a reduction in household energy purchases. The aim of the study presented here was to estimate the health benefits, cost savings and equity impacts of the Transport for London policy using a health economic modelling approach, from an English National Health Service and personal social services perspective., Methods: A diabetes prevention microsimulation model was modified to incorporate the London population and Transport for London advertising intervention. Conversion of calorie to body mass index reduction was mediated through an approximation of a mathematical model estimating weight loss. Outcomes gathered included incremental obesity, long-term diabetes and cardiovascular disease events, quality-adjusted life years, healthcare costs saved and net monetary benefit. Slope index of inequality was calculated for proportion of people with obesity across socioeconomic groups to assess equity impacts., Results: The results show that the Transport for London policy was estimated to have resulted in 94,867 (4.8%) fewer individuals with obesity, and to reduce incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease by 2,857 and 1,915 cases respectively within three years post intervention. The policy would produce an estimated 16,394 additional quality-adjusted life-years and save £218 m in NHS and social care costs over the lifetime of the current population. Greater benefits (e.g. a 37% higher gain in quality-adjusted life-years) were expected to accrue to individuals from the most socioeconomically deprived groups compared to the least deprived., Conclusions: This analysis suggests that there are considerable potential health and economic gains from restricting the advertisement of high fat, salt and sugar products. The population health and economic impacts of the Transport for London advertising restrictions are likely to have reduced health inequalities in London., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The UK private rental housing market has poorer quality housing compared with other sectors and is subjected to calls for better regulation. Poor quality housing poses risks to mental and physical health, and housing improvement can potentially benefit health and well-being. Local authorities have powers to implement selective licencing (SL) schemes in specific localities. Such schemes involve landlord registration, payment of licence fees, local authority inspection and requirements that landlords conduct any necessary renovation works to ensure housing standards are met. We aim to evaluate SL in Greater London and to test the feasibility of a national evaluation., Methods and Analysis: We will measure individual-level and area-level impacts of SL in Greater London between 2011 and 2019. A difference-in-differences approach with propensity score-matched controls will be used. We propose to exploit data from the Annual Population Survey (APS) and health and social benefit registers to measure mental health and well-being at individual (self-reported anxiety) and area (Small Area Mental Health Index) level. We estimate 633 APS participants in our intervention groups compared with 1899 participants in control areas (1:3 ratio of intervention to control). Secondary outcomes will be self-reported well-being and residential stability at the individual level and incidence of police-recorded antisocial behaviour calls and population turnover at the area level. The study size of the area-level analyses will be 3684 lower layer super output areas (including controls). Qualitative semistructured interviews with lead implementers in several London boroughs will produce insights into variations and commonalities between schemes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Ethics Committee (reference number 26481) and London Borough of Hackney. All interviewees will be asked for informed written consent. Study findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Restricting the advertisement of products with high fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) content has been recommended as a policy tool to improve diet and tackle obesity, but the impact on HFSS purchasing is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of HFSS advertising restrictions, implemented across the London (UK) transport network in February 2019, on HFSS purchases., Methods and Findings: Over 5 million take-home food and drink purchases were recorded by 1,970 households (London [intervention], n = 977; North of England [control], n = 993) randomly selected from the Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods panel. The intervention and control samples were similar in household characteristics but had small differences in main food shopper sex, socioeconomic position, and body mass index. Using a controlled interrupted time series design, we estimated average weekly household purchases of energy and nutrients from HFSS products in the post-intervention period (44 weeks) compared to a counterfactual constructed from the control and pre-intervention (36 weeks) series. Energy purchased from HFSS products was 6.7% (1,001.0 kcal, 95% CI 456.0 to 1,546.0) lower among intervention households compared to the counterfactual. Relative reductions in purchases of fat (57.9 g, 95% CI 22.1 to 93.7), saturated fat (26.4 g, 95% CI 12.4 to 40.4), and sugar (80.7 g, 95% CI 41.4 to 120.1) from HFSS products were also observed. Energy from chocolate and confectionery purchases was 19.4% (317.9 kcal, 95% CI 200.0 to 435.8) lower among intervention households than for the counterfactual, with corresponding relative reductions in fat (13.1 g, 95% CI 7.5 to 18.8), saturated fat (8.7 g, 95% CI 5.7 to 11.7), sugar (41.4 g, 95% CI 27.4 to 55.4), and salt (0.2 g, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) purchased from chocolate and confectionery. Relative reductions are in the context of secular increases in HFSS purchases in both the intervention and control areas, so the policy was associated with attenuated growth of HFSS purchases rather than absolute reduction in HFSS purchases. Study limitations include the lack of out-of-home purchases in our analyses and not being able to assess the sustainability of observed changes beyond 44 weeks., Conclusions: This study finds an association between the implementation of restrictions on outdoor HFSS advertising and relative reductions in energy, sugar, and fat purchased from HFSS products. These findings provide support for policies that restrict HFSS advertising as a tool to reduce purchases of HFSS products., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: JA is an Academic Editor for PLOS Medicine.

Introduction: One in five UK children aged 10-11 years live with obesity. They are more likely to continue living with obesity into adulthood and to develop obesity-related chronic health conditions at a younger age. Regulating the marketing of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods and beverages has been highlighted as a promising approach to obesity prevention. In 2019, Transport for London implemented restrictions on the advertisement of HFSS products across its network. This paper reports on a process evaluation of the design and implementation of this intervention., Methods: In 2019-2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 stakeholders. Interviews with those responsible for implementation (n = 13) explored stakeholder roles, barriers and facilitators to policy development/implementation and unintended consequences. Interviews with food industry stakeholders (n = 10) explored perceptions and acceptability of the policy, changes to business practice and impact on business. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach., Results: Practical challenges included limited time between policy announcement and implementation, translating the concept of 'junk food' into operational policy, the legal landscape, and reported uneven impacts across industry stakeholders. Political challenges included designing a policy the public views as appropriate, balancing health and financial impacts, and the perceived influence of political motivations. Consultation during policy development and close communication with industry reportedly facilitated implementation, as did the development of an exceptions process that provided a review pathway for HFSS products that might not contribute to children's HFSS consumption., Conclusions: Findings suggest that restricting the outdoor advertisement of HFSS foods and beverages at scale is feasible within a complex policy and business landscape. We outline practical steps that may further facilitate the development and implementation of similar policies and we report on the importance of ensuring such policies are applied in a way that is perceived as reasonable by industry and the public., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore sociodemographic differences in exposure to advertising for foods and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) and whether exposure is associated with body mass index (BMI)., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Setting: UK., Participants: 1552 adults recruited to the Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods panel for London and the North of England., Outcome Measures: Self-reported advertising exposure stratified by product/service advertised (processed HFSS foods; sugary drinks; sugary cereals; sweet snacks; fast food or digital food delivery services) and advertising setting (traditional; digital; recreational; functional or transport); BMI and sociodemographic characteristics., Results: Overall, 84.7% of participants reported exposure to HFSS advertising in the past 7 days. Participants in the middle (vs high) socioeconomic group had higher odds of overall self-reported exposure (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.07). Participants in the low (vs high) socioeconomic group had higher odds of reporting exposure to advertising for three of five product categories (ORs ranging from 1.41 to 1.67), advertising for digital food delivery services (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.05), traditional advertising (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.08) and digital advertising (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.14). Younger adults (18-34 years vs ≥65 years) had higher odds of reporting exposure to advertising for digital food delivery services (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.20 to 3.59), digital advertising (OR 3.93; 95% CI 2.18 to 7.08) and advertising across transport networks (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.48). Exposure to advertising for digital food delivery services (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.88), digital advertising (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.44) and advertising in recreational environments (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.09) was associated with increased odds of obesity., Conclusions: Exposure to less healthy product advertising was prevalent, with adults in lower socioeconomic groups and younger adults more likely to report exposure. Broader restrictions may be needed to reduce sociodemographic differences in exposure to less healthy product advertising., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)