| Literature DB >> 34325764 |
Yara Qutteina1, Lotte Hallez1, Maxime Raedschelders1, Charlotte De Backer2, Tim Smits1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between exposure to social media food messages and self-reported adolescent eating outcomes (including food intake, perceived norms and food literacy).Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Eating; Food literacy; Food marketing; Norms; Social media
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34325764 PMCID: PMC8883778 DOI: 10.1017/S1368980021003116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Public Health Nutr ISSN: 1368-9800 Impact factor: 4.022
Characteristics (age, gender, educational attainment and mother’s educational attainment) of study sample of 1002 adolescent participants
| Sample characteristics |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| 11–15 | 543 | 54 |
| 16–19 | 459 | 46 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 422 | 42 |
| Female | 579 | 58 |
| School education type | ||
| General education | 70 | 12 |
| Technical education | 292 | 48 |
| Vocational education | 243 | 40 |
| Art education | 3 | 0 |
| Mother’s educational attainment | ||
| Less than Secondary degree | 63 | 6 |
| Secondary degree | 206 | 21 |
| College degree | 263 | 26 |
| University degree | 193 | 19 |
| Don’t know | 247 | 25 |
Only for adolescents in 8th–12th grade (13–19 year olds) in secondary school.
Mean scores and standard deviations of reported food attitudes, perceived food norms and food literacy among 1002 Flemish adolescents (11–19 years old), and the differences between these scores in relation to core and non-core food
| Variable | Mean |
| Difference between core and non-core foods | Cohen’s d | 95 % CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food preferences | |||||
| Core food | 3·67 | 0·82 |
| 0·43 | 0·31, 0·55 |
| Non-core food | 4·03 | 0·88 | |||
| Perceived healthiness | |||||
| Core food | 4·35 | 0·78 |
| 3·73 | 3·46, 4·00 |
| Non-core food | 1·53 | 0·73 | |||
| Perceived descriptive norms | |||||
| Core food | 2·92 | 0·81 |
| 1·07 | 0·93, 1·21 |
| Non-core food | 3·81 | 0·86 | |||
| Perceived injunctive norms | |||||
| Core food | 4·54 | 1·18 |
| 2·26 | 2·06, 2·45 |
| Non-core food | 2·12 | 0·95 | |||
| Food literacy | 3·31 | 0·48 | NA | NA | NA |
Fig. 1Path analysis mediation model showing the indirect effects (a and b pathways) of reported exposure to non-core food social media posts on self-reported non-core food consumption (measured as frequency and quantity per month) among Flemish adolescents 11–19 years old. Significance **P < 0·05, ***P < 0·01, ****P < 0·000
Fig. 2Path analysis mediation model showing the indirect effects (a and b pathways) of reported exposure to branded non-core food social media messages on self-reported non-core food consumption (measured as frequency and quantity per month) among Flemish adolescents 11–19 years old. Significance **P < 0·05, ***P < 0·01, ****P < 0·000
Mediation models demonstrating the relationship between reported exposure to non-core food posts on social media and reported non-core food intake among Flemish adolescents 11–19 years old
| Sweets (Frequency) | Sweets (quantity g/d) | Soft drinks (Frequency) | Soft drinks (quantity ml/d) | Fried food (Frequency) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect Estimate |
|
| Effect Estimate |
|
| Effect Estimate |
|
| Effect Estimate |
|
| Effect Estimate |
|
| |
| Direct effect of non-core food posts | 0·015 | 0·006 | 0·022 | 0·015 | 0·006 | 0·022 | 0·007 | 0·008 | 0·388 | 0·013 | 0·009 | 0·145 | 0·033 | 0·007 | 0·000 |
| Indirect effects | |||||||||||||||
| Descriptive norms | 0·005 | 0·002 | 0·001 | 0·005 | 0·002 | 0·001 | 0·003 | 0·001 | 0·033 | 0·002 | 0·002 | 0·140 | 0·002 | 0·001 | 0·065 |
| Injunctive norms | −0·001 | 0·001 | 0·082 | −0·001 | 0·001 | 0·072 | −0·001 | 0·001 | 0·220 | −0·001 | 0·001 | 0·327 | 0·001 | 0·001 | 0·113 |
| Food literacy | −0·001 | 0·002 | 0·725 | −0·001 | 0·002 | 0·725 | −0·000 | 0·002 | 0·800 | 0·001 | 0·002 | 0·755 | −0·001 | 0·002 | 0·776 |
| Total indirect | 0·003 | 0·003 | 0·175 | 0·001 | 0·003 | 0·185 | 0·002 | 0·002 | 0·483 | 0·003 | 0·002 | 0·490 | 0·003 | 0·003 | 0·257 |
| Total effect | 0·011 | 0·008 | 0.007 | 0·018 | 0·007 | 0·007 | 0·008 | 0·008 | 0·292 | 0·015 | 0·008 | 0·094 | 0·036 | 0·008 | 0·000 |
Mediation models demonstrating the relationship between branded non-core food posts on social media and non-core food intake among Flemish adolescents 11–19 years old
| Sweets (frequency) | Sweets (quantity g/d) | Soft drinks (frequency) | Soft drinks (quantity ml/d) | Fried food (Frequency) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| |
| Direct effect of branded non-core food posts | 0·024 | 0·023 | 0·308 | 0·034 | 0·021 | 0·101 | −0·008 | 0·024 | 0·724 | 0·000 | 0·009 | 0·990 | 0·030 | 0·017 | 0·168 |
| Indirect effect | |||||||||||||||
| Descriptive norms | 0·023 | 0·006 | 0·000 | 0·017 | 0·005 | 0·001 | 0·009 | 0·004 | 0·023 | 0·010 | 0·006 | 0·081 | 0·010 | 0·004 | 0·014 |
| Injunctive norms | −0·000 | 0·002 | 0·760 | −0·001 | 0·002 | 0·727 | −0·000 | 0·001 | 0·763 | −0·001 | 0·001 | 0·557 | 0·000 | 0·002 | 0·878 |
| Food literacy | −0·006 | 0·005 | 0·216 | −0·008 | 0·006 | 0·191 | −0·006 | 0·005 | 0·218 | −0·009 | 0·010 | 0·369 | −0·009 | 0·007 | 0·223 |
| Total indirect | 0·016 | 0·008 | 0·043 | 0·009 | 0·008 | 0·270 | 0·003 | 0·007 | 0·668 | −0·000 | 0·011 | 0·998 | 0·001 | 0·008 | 0·868 |
| Total effect | 0·040 | 0·024 | 0·097 | 0·043 | 0·022 | 0·048 | −0·005 | 0·024 | 0·824 | 0·000 | 0·030 | 0·991 | 0·032 | 0·024 | 0·192 |
Fig. 3Path analysis mediation model showing the indirect effects (a and b pathways) of reported exposure to core food posts on self-reported core food consumption (measured as frequency and quantity per month) among Flemish adolescents 11–19 years old. Significance **P < 0·05, ***P < 0·01, ****P < 0·000
Mediation models demonstrating the relationship between core food posts on social media and core food intake among Flemish adolescents 11–19 years old
| Vegetables (frequency) | Vegetables (quantity g/d) | Fruits (frequency) | Fruits (quantity g/d) | Water (quantity g/d) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| Effect estimate |
|
| |
| Direct effect of core food posts | −0·011 | 0·009 | 0·219 | 0·011 | 0·009 | 0·226 | 0·005 | 0·008 | 0·548 | 0·040 | 0·043 | 0·359 | 0·006 | 0·009 | 0·489 |
| Indirect effect | |||||||||||||||
| Descriptive norms | 0·002 | 0·001 | 0·100 | 0·002 | 0·001 | 0·072 | −0·000 | 0·001 | 0·841 | 0·006 | 0·005 | 0·221 | −0·002 | 0·001 | 0·122 |
| Injunctive norms | −0·000 | 0·000 | 0·399 | −0·000 | 0·001 | 0·447 | −0·000 | 0·000 | 0·796 | −0·002 | 0·004 | 0·575 | 0·000 | 0·000 | 0·656 |
| Food literacy | 0·010 | 0·003 | 0·000 | 0·013 | 0·003 | 0·000 | 0·009 | 0·002 | 0·000 | 0·068 | 0·018 | 0·000 | 0·008 | 0·002 | 0·000 |
| Total indirect | 0·012 | 0·003 | 0·000 | 0·015 | 0·004 | 0·000 | 0·008 | 0·003 | 0·002 | 0·071 | 0·019 | 0·000 | 0·006 | 0·002 | 0·015 |
| Total effect | 0·000 | 0·010 | 0·974 | 0·026 | 0·010 | 0·007 | 0·013 | 0·009 | 0·125 | 0·111 | 0·047 | 0·018 | 0·012 | 0·009 | 0·173 |