Rachel Kornfield1, Glen Szczypka1, Lisa M Powell2, Sherry L Emery1. 1. 1Health Media Collaboratory,Institute for Health Research and Policy,University of Illinois,1747 West Roosevelt Road,M/C 275,Chicago,IL 60608,USA. 2. 2Health Policy and Administration,School of Public Health,University of Illinois,Chicago,IL,USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine levels of exposure and content characteristics for recent televised obesity-prevention campaigns sponsored by state and community health departments, federal agencies, non-profit organizations and television stations in the USA. DESIGN: Nielsen television ratings for obesity-prevention advertising were collected for the top seventy-five US media markets and were used to calculate household exposure levels for 2010 and 2011. Governmental advertisements were coded for content. SETTING: United States. RESULTS: Average household exposure to obesity-prevention campaigns was 2·6 advertisements per month. Exposure increased by 31 % between 2010 and 2011, largely driven by increases in federal advertisements. In 2011, the federal government accounted for 62 % of obesity-prevention exposure, non-profit organizations for 9 %, community departments for 8 %, state departments for 3 %, and television station-sponsored public-service announcements for 17 %. The greatest percentage increase between 2010 and 2011 was in community advertising, reflecting efforts funded by the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) programme. Among thirty-four state and community campaigns, the majority advocated both healthy eating and physical activity (53 %). Campaigns typically had positive or neutral emotional valence (94 %). Obesity or overweight was mentioned in 47 % of campaigns, but only 9 % specifically advocated weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to televised obesity-prevention advertising increased from 2010 to 2011 and was higher than previously found in 1999-2003, apart from in 2003 during the federal VERB campaign. Nevertheless, exposure remains low relative to advertising for unhealthy foods. New federal campaigns have increased exposure to obesity-prevention advertising nationally, while CPPW grants have increased exposure for targeted areas.
OBJECTIVE: To examine levels of exposure and content characteristics for recent televised obesity-prevention campaigns sponsored by state and community health departments, federal agencies, non-profit organizations and television stations in the USA. DESIGN: Nielsen television ratings for obesity-prevention advertising were collected for the top seventy-five US media markets and were used to calculate household exposure levels for 2010 and 2011. Governmental advertisements were coded for content. SETTING: United States. RESULTS: Average household exposure to obesity-prevention campaigns was 2·6 advertisements per month. Exposure increased by 31 % between 2010 and 2011, largely driven by increases in federal advertisements. In 2011, the federal government accounted for 62 % of obesity-prevention exposure, non-profit organizations for 9 %, community departments for 8 %, state departments for 3 %, and television station-sponsored public-service announcements for 17 %. The greatest percentage increase between 2010 and 2011 was in community advertising, reflecting efforts funded by the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) programme. Among thirty-four state and community campaigns, the majority advocated both healthy eating and physical activity (53 %). Campaigns typically had positive or neutral emotional valence (94 %). Obesity or overweight was mentioned in 47 % of campaigns, but only 9 % specifically advocated weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to televised obesity-prevention advertising increased from 2010 to 2011 and was higher than previously found in 1999-2003, apart from in 2003 during the federal VERB campaign. Nevertheless, exposure remains low relative to advertising for unhealthy foods. New federal campaigns have increased exposure to obesity-prevention advertising nationally, while CPPW grants have increased exposure for targeted areas.
Authors: Kimberley Dunstone; Emily Brennan; Michael D Slater; Helen G Dixon; Sarah J Durkin; Simone Pettigrew; Melanie A Wakefield Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Margaret E Tait; Jake Abrahams; Robert Brehm; Laura Baum; Erika Franklin Fowler; Jeff Niederdeppe; Sarah E Gollust Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-09-06
Authors: Sarah E Gollust; Chris Frenier; Margaret Tait; Colleen Bogucki; Jeff Niederdeppe; Steven T Moore; Laura Baum; Erika Franklin Fowler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 3.752