Abstract
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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 668 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | BMC Public Health |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 11 Apr 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research [Public Health Research Programme – project 135220]. LJS, CSR, RB, and JH are funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West). FDV, JN and RJ are partly funded by NIHR ARC West. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR PHR Programme, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funders had no involvement in data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the paper.
Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank Barry Norris, Jon Toy, Lauren Maddox, Sally Hogg, Tim Borrett (Bristol City Council), Sophie Duncan and Sara Blackmore (South Gloucestershire Council), and members of the Study Advisory Group (Peter Craig (University of Glasgow), Simone Arratoonian and Kate Yorke (Office for Health Improvement and Disparities), Fran Bernardt (SUSTAIN), Claire McIver (Staffordshire Council)).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
Research Groups and Themes
- HEHP@Bristol
