Obesity, Adolescent
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate how food commercials influence food choices in children and their parents.
Detailed description
The proposed research will investigate food decision-making in youth. Childhood obesity is a risk factor for health issues, thus preventing adverse effects of childhood obesity by promoting healthy eating habits and providing effective interventions are important. Television food commercials advertising calorie-dense and high in salt and sugar foods are known to contribute unhealthy food choices and obesity. Thus the proposed study will examine how the advertising intervention focusing on increasing advertising knowledge and changing affective attitudes toward commercials impacts susceptability to commercials and food decisions in youth.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALCommercial Advertising Literacy Training
Children were shown food commercials and in between those commercials they saw and heard statements such as These foods won't make you happy and Those foods are so unhealthy.
BEHAVIORALControl
Children were shown food commercials that were the same length as the other group but did not receive any information about whether the content was truthful.
Sponsors
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
University of Missouri, Kansas City
University of Kansas Medical Center
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
8 Years to 12 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Children had to be between 8-12.9 years old (including 8 year olds, NOT including 13 year olds. * Had to be able to speak English as their primary language. * Self-reported normal hearing and vision.
Exclusion criteria
* Did not speak English * Data from children with history of neurological conditions, clinically significant psychopathology, or learning disabilities reported by parents (e.g., Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, depression) will be excluded.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Food Choice Change | Pre (day 0) and post intervention (day 7-10). | Children rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1-Strong No, 2-No, 3-Yes, 4-Strong Yes) about whether they would choose to eat 60 different foods (30 unhealthy, 30 healthy) on a computer program. Higher values for unhealthy foods represented unhealthier food choices and higher values for healthy foods represented healthier food choices. The mean scores for unhealthy food choices were compared between pre- and post-intervention, and the mean scores for healthy food choices were compared between pre- and post-intervention. |
| Food Tastiness Change | Pre (day 0) and post intervention (day 7-10). | Children rated on a 4 point Likert scale (1-Very Bad, 2-Bad, 3-Good, 4-Very Good) about how tasty 60 different foods (30 unhealthy, 30 healthy) were on a computer program. A regression coefficient (beta) of food taste was estimated at an individual level by fitting a linear regression model where taste and health ratings predicted food choices for each child. Higher estimated regression coefficients represented higher decision weights of food taste attributes in food choices. The mean estimated regression coefficients were compared between pre- and post-intervention. |
| Food Health Change | Pre (day 0) and post intervention (day 7-10). | Children rated on a 4 point Likert scale (1-Very Unhealthy, 2-Unhealthy, 3-Healthy, 4-Very Healthy) about how healthy 60 different foods (30 unhealthy, 30 healthy) were on a computer program. A regression coefficient (beta) of food healthiness was estimated at an individual level by fitting a linear regression model where taste and health ratings predicted food choices for each child. Higher estimated regression coefficients represented higher decision weights of food healthiness attributes in food choices. The mean estimated regression coefficients were compared between pre- and post-intervention. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Level of Self-Control, as Measured by the Self-Control Scale | Children completed this item at the baseline visit (pre intervention). | Children completed the 36-item self-control scale. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). A total score (i.e., 36 response scores were summed) was computed for each child. The total score ranged between 36 (minimum) and 180 (maximum). The higher total score represented higher (better) perceived self-control. No subscales were used. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Control Children were exposed to food commercials without narratives.
Control: Children were shown food commercials that were the same length as the other group but did not receive any information about whether the content was truthful. | 19 |
| Intervention Children were exposed to narrative statements that were shown and read aloud in between commercials played.
Commercial Advertising Literacy Training: Children were shown food commercials and in between those commercials they saw and heard statements such as These foods won't make you happy and Those foods are so unhealthy. | 30 |
| Total | 49 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | COVID lockdown | 1 | 0 |
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 0 | 2 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Intervention | Total | Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 30 Participants | 49 Participants | 19 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 10.06 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.37 | 10.51 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.45 | 12.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.43 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 2 Participants | 4 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 10 Participants | 17 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 18 Participants | 28 Participants | 10 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 30 Participants | 49 Participants | 19 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 17 Participants | 28 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 13 Participants | 21 Participants | 8 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 19 | 0 / 30 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 19 | 0 / 30 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 19 | 0 / 30 |
Outcome results
Primary
Food Choice Change
Children rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1-Strong No, 2-No, 3-Yes, 4-Strong Yes) about whether they would choose to eat 60 different foods (30 unhealthy, 30 healthy) on a computer program. Higher values for unhealthy foods represented unhealthier food choices and higher values for healthy foods represented healthier food choices. The mean scores for unhealthy food choices were compared between pre- and post-intervention, and the mean scores for healthy food choices were compared between pre- and post-intervention.
Time frame: Pre (day 0) and post intervention (day 7-10).
Population: The experimenter assigned children to one of two groups using a random assignment of drawing cell numbers pre-assigned for each group.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Food Choice Change | Pre Intervention Unhealthy foods | 3.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.29 |
| Control | Food Choice Change | Post Intervention Unhealthy foods | 3.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.37 |
| Control | Food Choice Change | Pre Intervention Healthy foods | 2.66 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.37 |
| Control | Food Choice Change | Post Intervention Healthy foods | 2.76 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.44 |
| Intervention | Food Choice Change | Post Intervention Healthy foods | 2.86 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.36 |
| Intervention | Food Choice Change | Pre Intervention Unhealthy foods | 3.19 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.37 |
| Intervention | Food Choice Change | Pre Intervention Healthy foods | 2.83 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.39 |
| Intervention | Food Choice Change | Post Intervention Unhealthy foods | 3.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.48 |
Primary
Food Health Change
Children rated on a 4 point Likert scale (1-Very Unhealthy, 2-Unhealthy, 3-Healthy, 4-Very Healthy) about how healthy 60 different foods (30 unhealthy, 30 healthy) were on a computer program. A regression coefficient (beta) of food healthiness was estimated at an individual level by fitting a linear regression model where taste and health ratings predicted food choices for each child. Higher estimated regression coefficients represented higher decision weights of food healthiness attributes in food choices. The mean estimated regression coefficients were compared between pre- and post-intervention.
Time frame: Pre (day 0) and post intervention (day 7-10).
Population: The experimenter assigned children to one of two groups using a random assignment of drawing cell numbers pre-assigned for each group.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Food Health Change | Pre Intervention | 0.003 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.19 |
| Control | Food Health Change | Post Intervention | -0.01 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.17 |
| Intervention | Food Health Change | Pre Intervention | 0.02 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.24 |
| Intervention | Food Health Change | Post Intervention | 0.01 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.16 |
Primary
Food Tastiness Change
Children rated on a 4 point Likert scale (1-Very Bad, 2-Bad, 3-Good, 4-Very Good) about how tasty 60 different foods (30 unhealthy, 30 healthy) were on a computer program. A regression coefficient (beta) of food taste was estimated at an individual level by fitting a linear regression model where taste and health ratings predicted food choices for each child. Higher estimated regression coefficients represented higher decision weights of food taste attributes in food choices. The mean estimated regression coefficients were compared between pre- and post-intervention.
Time frame: Pre (day 0) and post intervention (day 7-10).
Population: The experimenter assigned children to one of two groups using a random assignment of drawing cell numbers pre-assigned for each group.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Food Tastiness Change | Pre Intervention | 0.68 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.22 |
| Control | Food Tastiness Change | Post Intervention | 0.57 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.28 |
| Intervention | Food Tastiness Change | Pre Intervention | 0.75 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.34 |
| Intervention | Food Tastiness Change | Post Intervention | 0.59 beta coefficient | Standard Deviation 0.27 |
Secondary
Level of Self-Control, as Measured by the Self-Control Scale
Children completed the 36-item self-control scale. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). A total score (i.e., 36 response scores were summed) was computed for each child. The total score ranged between 36 (minimum) and 180 (maximum). The higher total score represented higher (better) perceived self-control. No subscales were used.
Time frame: Children completed this item at the baseline visit (pre intervention).
Population: The experimenter assigned children to one of two groups using a random assignment of drawing cell numbers pre-assigned for each group.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Level of Self-Control, as Measured by the Self-Control Scale | 125.89 scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 17.01 |
| Intervention | Level of Self-Control, as Measured by the Self-Control Scale | 125.00 scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.75 |