| Literature DB >> 33845809 |
Oumy Erica Wie Dia1, Anne Lene Løvhaug1, Peter Milton Rukundo2, Liv Elin Torheim3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages is recognized as a contributing factor to the global increase in overweight and obesity, particularly among children. Such marketing negatively affects children's dietary preferences, food choices, purchasing requests, and consumption patterns. Given that little is known about food marketing in Africa, including in Uganda, monitoring children's exposure to food marketing is essential to generate evidence on the problem and develop meaningful policy responses. The aim of this study was to describe the food and beverage marketing environment surrounding schools in urban and peri-urban areas of Kampala city.Entities:
Keywords: Alcoholic beverages; Food marketing; Outdoor food advertising; Primary and secondary schools; Sugar-sweetened beverages; Unhealthy foods
Year: 2021 PMID: 33845809 PMCID: PMC8042698 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10661-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Characteristics of the study units
| Total schools | Schools in Kampala Central Division (urban) | Schools in Kawempe Division (peri-urban) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| School characteristics | n | n | n |
| School type | |||
| Primary schools | 13 | 7 | 6 |
| Secondary schools | 12 | 6 | 6 |
| School category | |||
| Government-funded schools | 9 | 8 | 1 |
| Private schools | 16 | 5 | 11 |
| School fee | |||
| Low school fee | 9 | 6 | 3 |
| Medium school fee | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| High school fee | 8 | 3 | 5 |
| Total | 25 | 13 | 12 |
Type and frequency of promoted foods and beverages around the schools (% of total ads)
| Major and minor food categories | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Bottled water | 31 | 3 |
| Healthy oils and low-fat savory sauces | 21 | 2 |
| Staple foods/plain starch products | 12 | 1 |
| Low-fat dairy and dairy alternatives, and drinks | 11 | 1 |
| Meat and meat alternatives | 4 | 0 |
| Low sugar, high fiber cereals | 2 | 0 |
| Fruit/fruits products without added sugar | 2 | 0 |
| Healthy snacks | 2 | 0 |
| Sugar-sweetened beverages | 522 | 51 |
| Alcohol | 233 | 23 |
| High fat and/or sugar flavoured dairy products | 56 | 5 |
| Chocolate and candy | 25 | 2 |
| Fast food | 15 | 2 |
| Savoury snack food | 9 | 1 |
| Other high fat/salt products | 9 | 1 |
| Sweet breads, biscuits, pies, and pastries | 6 | 1 |
| Ice cream and desserts | 3 | 0 |
| Fruit juice/drinks (< 98%) | 3 | 0 |
| Sugar-rich, low fiber cereals | 3 | 0 |
| Ultra-processed meat and meat alternatives | 2 | 0 |
| Condiments, seasonings and recipe additions | 47 | 5 |
| Baby and toddler milk formulae | 9 | 1 |
| Vitamin or dietary supplements | 4 | 1 |
| Tea and coffee | 2 | 0 |
a Major food categories (in bold): healthy/unhealthy/miscellaneous. Minor food categories: the type of food product advertised under their respective major food category
Fig. 1The proportion of sugar-sweetened beverages by advertising companies. a Excluding Coca-Cola ads promoted with fast foods. Instead, the nine ads where Coca Cola and fast food was combined in one ad were coded as minor food category 22 titled “fast food”. b Riham Group under Hariss International Limited. c Companies that in total accounted for less than 1 % of the sugar-sweetened advertisements fell under the category titled “other”
Median (25-, 75-percentiles) number of food and beverage advertisements (total and by major food categories) within a radius of 250 m around the school, by school characteristics (n = 25)
| Total food ads | Major food categories | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unhealthy | Healthy | Miscellaneous | ||
| Urban areas ( | 45 (34, 67) | 38 (29, 50) | 4 (3, 5) | 1 (1, 3) |
| Peri-urban areas ( | 24 (15, 51) | 21 (14, 45) | 1 (0, 3) | 1 (0, 3) |
| | 0.077 | 0.11 | 0.005 | 0.73 |
| Low ( | 45 (33, 53) | 36 (29, 45) | 4 (3, 5) | 1 (1, 7) |
| Medium ( | 44 (22, 63) | 38 (21, 55) | 3 (1, 5) | 1 (1, 3) |
| High ( | 33 (22, 45) | 31 (19, 42) | 2 (1, 3) | 1 (0, 3) |
| p-value b | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 0.41 |
| Primary ( | 41 (33, 58) | 37 (29, 45) | 3 (1, 5) | 2 (1, 7) |
| Secondary ( | 30 (17, 53) | 27 (15, 50) | 2 (1, 4) | 1 (0, 3) |
| p-value a | 0.29 | 0.47 | 0.27 | 0.25 |
| Government-funded ( | 45 (33, 67) | 39 (29, 50) | 4 (3, 5) | 1 (1, 3) |
| Private ( | 38 (22, 52) | 33 (19, 45) | 2 (1, 4) | 2 (0, 3) |
| p-value a | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.084 | 0.85 |
| Total | 40 (22, 55) | 36 (19, 47) | 3 (1, 5) | 1 (0,3) |
a Differences between groups measured with Mann-Whitney U test
b Differences between groups measured with Kruskal Wallis test
Fig. 2Density (per 100 m2) of food and beverage advertisements (total and by major food categories) by urban and peri-urban areas
Food advertising (total and by major food categories) by the size of the advertisement and by use of promotional characters (n = 1034)
| Total food ads | Major food categories | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unhealthy | Healthy | Miscellaneous | p-valuea | ||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| n.s. | |||||||||
| Small ad | 409 | 39.6 | 351 | 39.5 | 34 | 40.5 | 24 | 39.4 | |
| Medium ad | 396 | 38.3 | 340 | 38.2 | 30 | 36.9 | 25 | 38.3 | |
| Large ad | 229 | 22.1 | 198 | 22.3 | 19 | 22.6 | 12 | 22.1 | |
| 0.002 | |||||||||
| No | 957 | 92.6 | 825 | 92.8 | 71 | 84.5 | 61 | 100 | |
| Yes | 77 | 7.4 | 64 | 7.2 | 13 | 15.5 | 0 | 0 | |
a Pearson’s Chi square