Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
The quantitative evaluation of the impact of a new outdoor advertising restrictions policy in Bristol: a natural experiment evaluation. |
| Authors: |
Buckland, Genevieve (AUTHOR), Toumpakari, Zoi (AUTHOR), Jago, Russell (AUTHOR), Harding, Sarah (AUTHOR), Nobles, James (AUTHOR), Horwood, Jeremy (AUTHOR), Rejon, Carlos Sillero (AUTHOR), Hollingworth, William (AUTHOR), Cummins, Steve (AUTHOR), Blake, Sarah (AUTHOR), Nairn, Agnes (AUTHOR), de Vocht, Frank (AUTHOR) |
| Source: |
Lancet. Nov2024:Supplement 1, Vol. 404, pS83-S83. 1p. |
| Subjects: |
Outdoor advertising, Payday loans, Advertising laws, Health programs, University faculty |
| Abstract: |
In 2021, Bristol became the first city outside London to introduce a policy to restrict advertisements of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) products and other unhealthy commodities (alcohol, gambling and payday loans) on council sites. This research evaluates the impact of this advertising restriction policy (ARP) on exposure to adverts of unhealthy commodities, consumption/use of these products, and household purchasing of HFSS products. We conducted a controlled repeated cross-sectional study of residents of Bristol (intervention) and South Gloucestershire (comparator) before (n=2543) and after (n=2043) the ARP. Self-reported exposure and consumption/use of these products was collected. The intervention effect was analysed using a controlled before-after design. In addition, we analysed 2020–23 timeseries of purchased foods and drinks by 1012 households from Bristol (intervention; n=217) and three control areas (Cardiff, Gloucestershire, and Sheffield; n=795) using Kantar's Worldpanel Take Home data. A controlled interrupted time series design estimated weekly household purchases of energy and nutrients from HFSS products compared to the counterfactual. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FREC). Preliminary results do not indicate significant changes in exposure or consumption/use of unhealthy commodities post-intervention. However, overall direction of results suggested a potential reduction; ie, a –22·1 (95% CI –47·3, 16·2) percentage point decrease in reported consumption of fast-food in intervention versus comparator. Preliminary results also did not indicate significant differences in weekly energy purchased from HFSS products compared to counterfactuals (+915·1 kcal, 95% CI –31·7, 1861·9), nor for purchases of fat (+39·4 g, 95% CI –19·6, 98·3), saturated fat (+23·5 g, 95% CI –2·9, 49·8), sugar (+53·2 g, 95% CI –14·4, 120·8) or salt (–0·4 g, 95% CI –4·1, 3·2) from HFSS products. These results did not indicate a clear impact of Bristol's ARP on consumption of unhealthy commodities or exposure to their adverts, or purchasing of HFSS products. Bristol City Council only own ˜30% of the outdoor advertising space in Bristol which may explain the limited impact. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme (Award ID: NIHR152114) and supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Lancet is the property of Lancet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
