Abstract
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 United Kingdom
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 1.06-2.07). 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 1.36 to 1.67), advertising for digital food delivery services (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.05-2.05), traditional advertising (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.00-2.08) and digital advertising (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06-2.14). 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 1.20-3.59), digital advertising (OR 3.93; 95% CI 2.18-7.08) and advertising across transport networks (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.11-3.48). Exposure to advertising for digital food delivery services (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.88), digital advertising (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.33-2.44) and advertising in recreational environments (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.02-2.09) were 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.
Design Cross-sectional survey
Setting United Kingdom
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 1.06-2.07). 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 1.36 to 1.67), advertising for digital food delivery services (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.05-2.05), traditional advertising (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.00-2.08) and digital advertising (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06-2.14). 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 1.20-3.59), digital advertising (OR 3.93; 95% CI 2.18-7.08) and advertising across transport networks (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.11-3.48). Exposure to advertising for digital food delivery services (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.88), digital advertising (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.33-2.44) and advertising in recreational environments (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.02-2.09) were 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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e048139 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | BMJ Open |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 7 Apr 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:©
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BMJ Publishing Group at https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/4/e048139 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Handle.net
Full-text PDF (final published version)
Accepted author manuscript, 487 KB