The impact on dietary outcomes of licensed and brand equity characters in marketing unhealthy foods to children: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Summary Licensed and brand equity characters are used to target children in the marketing of products high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS), but the impact of characters on dietary outcomes is unclear. The primary aim of this review was to quantify the impact of both licensed and brand equity characte...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obesity reviews 2022-07, Vol.23 (7), p.e13443-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Packer, Jessica, Russell, Simon J., McLaren, Katie, Siovolgyi, Gabriela, Stansfield, Claire, Viner, Russell M., Croker, Helen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Summary Licensed and brand equity characters are used to target children in the marketing of products high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS), but the impact of characters on dietary outcomes is unclear. The primary aim of this review was to quantify the impact of both licensed and brand equity characters on children's dietary outcomes given that existing regulations often differentiates between these character types. We systematically searched eight interdisciplinary databases and included studies from 2009 onwards until August 2021, including all countries and languages. Participants were children under 16 years, exposure was marketing for HFSS product with a character, and the outcomes were dietary consumption, preference, or purchasing behaviors of HFSS products. Data allowed for meta‐analysis of taste preferences. A total of 16 articles (including 20 studies) met the inclusion criteria, of which five were included in the meta‐analysis. Under experimental conditions, the use of characters on HFSS packaging compared with HFSS packaging with no character was found to result in significantly higher taste preference for HFSS products (standardized mean difference on a 5‐point scale 0.273; p 
ISSN:1467-7881
1467-789X
DOI:10.1111/obr.13443