Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.

Association of Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing With Children and Adolescents’ Eating Behaviors and Health

Emma Boyland, Lauren McGale, Michelle Maden and 4 more

JAMA Pediatrics · 2022 · Meta-analysis

doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.1037

Abstract

Question. What is the association between food marketing (compared with less or no food marketing) and eating behavior and health in children and adolescents across the extant literature?

Findings. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 96 studies (64 randomized clinical trials, 32 nonrandomized studies), food marketing was associated with significant increases in food intake, choice, preference, and purchase requests. There was no clear evidence of associations with purchasing, and little evidence on dental health or body weight outcomes.

Meaning. Results support the implementation of policies to restrict children’s exposure to food marketing.

Importance. There is widespread interest in the effect of food marketing on children; however, the comprehensive global evidence reviews are now dated.

Objective. To quantify the association of food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing with behavioral and health outcomes in children and adolescents to inform updated World Health Organization guidelines.

Data Sources. Twenty-two databases were searched (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library) with a publication date limit from January 2009 through March 2020.

Study Selection. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines were followed. Inclusion criteria were primary studies assessing the association of food marketing with specified outcomes in children and adolescents (aged 0-19 years). Exclusion criteria were qualitative studies or those on advertising of infant formula. Of 31 063 articles identified, 96 articles were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, and 80 articles in the meta-analysis (19 372 participants).

Data Extraction and Synthesis. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses; meta-regressions, sensitivity analyses, and P curve analyses were also performed. Where appropriate, pooling was conducted using combining P values and vote counting by direction of effect. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to judge certainty of evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures. Critical outcomes were intake, choice, preference, and purchasing. Important outcomes were purchase requests, dental caries, body weight, and diet-related noncommunicable diseases.

Results. Participants totaled 19 372 from 80 included articles. Food marketing was associated with significant increases in intake (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.35; P <.001), choice (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.26-2.50; P <.001), and preference (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49; P =.001). Substantial heterogeneity (all >76%) was unexplained by sensitivity or moderator analyses. The combination of P values for purchase requests was significant but no clear evidence was found for an association of marketing with purchasing. Data on dental health and body weight outcomes were scarce. The certainty of evidence was graded as very low to moderate for intake and choice, and very low for preference and purchasing.

Conclusions and Relevance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, food marketing was associated with increased intake, choice, preference, and purchase requests in children and adolescents. Implementation of policies to restrict children’s exposure is expected to benefit child health.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Global trends show substantial increases in obesity among children in recent decades. This has serious implications for morbidity and mortality given that childhood obesity tracks into adulthood and excess weight is an important risk factor for noncommunicable disease (NCD). Changes in global systems are key drivers of rising obesity, specifically growth in the production of affordable, highly processed foods that are effectively marketed.

Food and/or nonalcoholic beverage (hereafter referred to as food) marketing that largely promotes products high in fat, sugar, and/or salt (HFSS) is prevalent across television, digital media, outdoor spaces, and sport. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the effects of food marketing given their immature cognitive and emotional development, peer-group influence, and high exposure., The pathway linking exposure to HFSS food marketing with behavioral and health effects is complex but associations meet the criteria for a causal relationship. HFSS food marketing also negatively affects numerous child rights, including the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, the right to adequate food, and the right to privacy.

Implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Nonalcoholic Beverages to Children has been inconsistent. The underpinning evidence review largely predated the internet as a major marketing platform and there is more than a decade of new research to consider. Although its conclusions are corroborated by more recent reviews and meta-analyses,,,,, these are also limited to television advertising and dated digital marketing forms (eg, advergaming), including selective outcomes, such as intake, and lack assessment of evidential value or certainty. Therefore, WHO commissioned the current research to inform the development of updated recommendations to restrict food marketing to children.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and a series of meta-analyses following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The WHO Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group Subgroup on Policy Actions formulated the research question and identified the critical and important outcomes to be captured (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement). The terms marketing, exposure, and power were used as defined by WHO. The protocol was preregistered in the PROSPERO database in May 2019 (CRD42019137993).

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

We considered primary studies (randomized clinical trial [RCT] or nonrandomized study [NRS]) for inclusion if they assessed the association of food marketing with specified outcomes in children (aged 0-19 years). Exclusion criteria comprised qualitative designs and studies assessing the effect of advertising for infant formula or of marketing strategies outside of WHO’s definition. Critical outcomes comprised food intake, choice, preference, and purchasing (by, or on behalf of, children). Important outcomes were purchase requests (by children to a caregiver), dental caries and erosion, body weight, body mass index (BMI) and obesity, and diet-related NCDs (including validated surrogate indicators). Outcomes are defined in eAppendix 1 in the Supplement.

Searches were conducted in April 2019 and updated in March 2020 by an information specialist (M.M.). Data were analyzed in December 2020. Searches were limited to studies added to databases from January 1, 2009 (the previous global review included evidence to December 2008). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, The Cochrane Library (CDSR, CENTRAL), Business Source Complete, EconLit, Emerald, JSTOR, HMIC, Advertising Education Forum, The Campbell Library, Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Healthevidence.org, TRIP, IRIS, Global Index Medicus, KOREAMED, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Academic Search Complete, and Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Targeted searches of Google and Google Scholar were undertaken. The search strategy is provided in the eAppendix 1 in the Supplement. All searches were peer reviewed (checked for accuracy by 3 researchers [E.B., L.M., K.A.] and a WHO librarian).

These searches were supplemented by (1) hand-searching reference lists of retrieved systematic reviews and eligible studies, (2) contact with topic experts, (3) forward and backward citation searching of included studies, and (4) a WHO evidence call for data. No language restrictions were applied.

Two reviewers (E.B., L.M., J.H., M.M.) independently screened studies against the inclusion criteria, assessing titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies, then reviewing full texts. Titles and abstracts of articles not in English were screened using Google Translate, then researchers proficient in both languages translated the full texts for review. For multiple publications from the same cohort, we used data from the main contrast (food marketing vs no, less, or less powerful marketing) or the biggest sample. Disagreement was resolved through consensus and, if necessary, consulting a third reviewer. The search and screening processes were combined for this and a parallel review on the effectiveness of food marketing policies (Prospero identifier: CRD42019132506).

Quality Assessment

We used Risk of Bias 2 to assess bias in RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess quality of the NRS. Bias assessments were conducted by one reviewer and independently checked by a second (E.B., L.M., J.H, M.M.).

Statistical Analysis

Two reviewers (E.B., L.M.) independently extracted data using prepiloted forms. Study authors were contacted, if necessary, to provide data. Where data were only available in a figure, we used WebPlotDigitizer (version 4.3) for extraction.

For studies with multiple interventions, we extracted data from all relevant interventions and the control group or most relevant comparator intervention. For studies with interventions comprising different levels of the same marketing exposures, we selected the largest (eg, most advertisements) as the exposure arm to maximize identification of effects. Relevant outcome measures and effect estimates were extracted. Where more than 1 eligible effect measure was available, we extracted the most comprehensive measure (eg, overall intake rather than of a single item) or prioritized the unhealthy categories.

Cochrane recommendations were followed for the synthesis. Meta-analysis was used where studies were sufficiently homogenous. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we selected the most appropriate synthesis method available: combining P values using Fisher method or vote counting by direction of effect (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement).

For meta-analyses, random-effects restricted maximum likelihood estimator analyses were conducted using the metafor package in R (version 4.1.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The I2 (inconsistency) statistic was used to assess heterogeneity, with a value of I2 less than 50% indicating substantial heterogeneity. We undertook leave-one-out, trim and fill analyses, graphical displays of heterogeneity (GOSH), and Egger regression test to examine bias. We examined any influential cases with a difference in beta score more than 1.

When appropriate, we conducted subgroup (moderation) analyses by study design (RCT vs NRS), marketing manipulation type (exposure vs power), and marketing channel (television vs digital vs packaging). Within RCTs, we examined whether risk of bias scores (low vs medium) moderated the association (not possible for the preference outcome owing to the small number of data points), and within NRSs we conducted meta-regressions to examine if scores on the NOS were associated with the effect. For diet and choice outcomes, we examined whether mean age of children in the sample or BMI z score of the sample was associated with effect size using meta-regression (not possible for the preference outcome owing to the small number of data points). To examine evidential value, we conducted P curve analyses using the dmetar function in R.

We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to judge the certainty of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement). Research team certainty assessments were revised where necessary following discussion with the WHO Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group Subgroup on Policy Actions.

Results

A total of 31 063 titles were assessed for eligibility and 28 682 were ineligible (Figure 1). Of 2381 full-text articles assessed, 96 studies were included in the systematic review and 80 in the meta-analyses. Study characteristics are provided in the Supplement (eAppendix 2 in the Supplement). Pooled critical outcome data for food intake, choice, and preference are summarized in the Table. Overall forest plots are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4. Forest plots for subgroup analyses, GOSH, and P curve plots are in eAppendix 4 in the Supplement.

Data relating to other outcomes, bias assessments, and all GRADE tables are in the Supplement (eAppendices 3, 5, and 6 in the Supplement). No relevant studies were identified with the diet-related NCDs outcome.

For food intake, 46 studies (in 43 articles) were identified (31 RCTs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 8 observational NRSs,,,,,,,, and 7 experimental NRSs,,,,,). Pooled analyses of data from 41 studies (42 effect sizes) found that food marketing was associated with a significant increase in intake (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.35; z = 4.77; I2 = 77.2%; P <.001; Figure 2). The association was robust to sensitivity analyses and GOSH analyses demonstrated that across 100 000 iterations of the analyses the pooled effect SMD was approximately 0.24 (eAppendix 4 in the Supplement). There was no statistical evidence that study design (χ2 = 1.75; P =.19), marketing manipulation type (χ2 = 0.39; P =.53), or marketing channel (χ2 = 0.71; P =.70) significantly moderated the effect sizes. A meta-regression of mean age of children in the studies (mean [range] age, 8.6 years [4.1-13.6]) on the effect size was not significant (β = −0.02; 95% CI, −0.071 to 0.252; P =.35). There was no association between BMI z scores (mean [range], 1.01 [0.01-2.30]) and the effect size (β = 0.20; 95% CI, −0.136 to 0.534; P =.24). The P curve continuous test for evidential value was significant (z = 8.226; P <.001), indicating a true effect, as the distributions of P values were more frequent at P less than.01 compared with P of approximately.05. Of the 5 studies not included in the pooled analyses, 3 found associations of food marketing on intake,, and 2 found no association., The certainty of evidence for RCTs was moderate (affected by unexplained high heterogeneity), and for NRSs was very low (observational studies have a lower starting position within the GRADE assessment and certainty was downgraded owing to the imprecision of the effect size estimates from these studies).

For food choice, 37 studies (in 36 articles) were identified (27 RCTs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and 10 experimental NRSs,,,,). Pooled analyses of data from 27 studies found that food marketing was significantly associated with food choice (odds ratio [OR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.26-2.50; z = 3.27; I2 = 77.5%; P <.001; Figure 3). Specifically, food marketing exposure was associated with increased odds of 1.77 times greater choice of the test item(s), irrespective of whether the test item was unhealthy or healthy. However, we note that only 3 of 27 effect sizes,, reported on choice of healthier items specifically and only 1 of those did so within a study design in which the marketing exposure itself was for healthier food. The association was robust to sensitivity analyses and GOSH analyses demonstrated that across 100 000 iterations of the analyses the pooled effect OR was approximately 1.70 (eAppendix 4 in the Supplement). There was no statistical evidence that study design (χ2 = 3.01; P =.08), marketing manipulation type (χ2 = 0.012; P =.91), or marketing channel (χ2 = 0.02, P =.99) significantly moderated the effect sizes. A meta-regression of mean age of children in the studies (mean [range] age, 8.76 [4.0–11.8] years) on the effect size was not significant (β = −0.08; 95% CI, −0.345 to 0.178; P =.53). The continuous test for evidential value was significant (z = 8.287; P <.001). Ten studies were not included in the pooled analysis; of these 8 found an association of food marketing with food choice (of which 7 were in the direction of greater choice of test items with food marketing exposure,,,,,, while 1 found greater choice of test items in the control condition) and 2 found no association., Supplementary analysis of 3 of these studies, that used a crossover design with binary outcomes showed a nonsignificant pooled OR of 3.45 (95% CI, 0.97-12.43). The certainty of evidence for RCTs was moderate (unexplained high heterogeneity), and for NRSs was very low (observational studies, risk of bias, and imprecision of the effect size estimates).

For food preference, 20 studies (in 19 articles) were identified (12 RCTs,,,,,,,,,, and 8 experimental NRSs,,,,,,,). Pooled analyses of data from 12 studies found that food marketing was significantly associated with increased food preference (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49; Z = 3.21, I2 = 90.0%; P =.001; Figure 4). The association was robust to sensitivity analyses and GOSH analyses demonstrated that across 100 000 iterations of the analyses the pooled effect SMD was approximately 0.53 (eAppendix 4 in the Supplement). There was no statistical evidence that study design (χ2[1] = 0.19; P =.67), marketing manipulation type (χ2 = 0.44; P =.51), or marketing channel (χ2 = 1.29; P =.53) significantly moderated the effect sizes. The continuous test for evidential value was significant (z = 5.504; P <.01). Eight studies were not able to be included in the pooled analysis, of which 6 found an association of food marketing with preference,,,,, and 2 found no association., When studies with crossover designs and binary outcomes,,, were analyzed separately, there was a significant association of marketing with preference (OR, 3.49; 95% CI, 2.03-6.22; z = 4.40; P <.001). The certainty of evidence for both RCTs and NRSs was very low (inconsistency, imprecision).

For food purchasing, 5 studies (1 RCT, 1 experimental NRSs, and 3 observational NRSs,,) were identified. All 3 observational NRSs (moderate quality to high quality) found an association between food marketing and purchasing (2 effects of public health harm,, 1 of public health benefit). The RCT (with some concerns of bias) and moderate-quality experimental NRS found no association. The proportion of studies that found clear association of potential public health harm (1 of 4) was 25% (95% CI, 1.3%-78.1%). The proportion of studies that found unclear associations of potential public health harm (1 of 4) was 25% (95% CI, 1.3%-78.1%). The proportion of studies that showed any association (clear or unclear) of public health harm (2 of 5) was 40% (95% CI, 7.3%-83.0%). The certainty of evidence for both RCTs and NRSs was very low (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision).

For purchase requests, 6 studies (5 RCTs,,,, and 1 observational NRS) were identified. The combination of P values was statistically significant in both model iterations (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement) suggesting evidence of food marketing associations with this outcome. The certainty of evidence for RCTs was moderate (risk of bias), and for NRS was very low (observational studies, risk of bias).

For dental caries, 2 observational NRSs were identified. A moderate-quality study found a clear association of public health harm and a high-quality study found no association. The proportion of studies that showed any association (clear or unclear) with public health harm (1 of 2) was 50% (95% CI, 9%-90.5%). The certainty of evidence was very low (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).

Very little evidence was available on the association between food marketing and body weight or BMI. This review identified a single, moderate-quality observational NRS with no significant associations. The certainty of evidence was very low (risk of bias, indirectness). No studies were found with relevant data on diet-related NCDs or validated surrogate indicators.

Discussion

In this study, food marketing exposure was associated with increases in children’s food intake, choice of and preference toward test items, and purchase requests. There was little evidence to support associations with food purchasing by or on behalf of children, while data relating to dental health and body weight outcomes were scarce. No studies were found for the diet-related NCDs or validated surrogate indicators outcome.

The effect sizes from the pooled analyses were small for intake and preference, moderate to large for choice, and robust to sensitivity analyses. P curve analyses demonstrated significant evidential value, indicative of a lack of selective reporting or P hacking. These findings are largely consistent with, and build on, previous findings,,,,, although there are some discrepancies. For example, Russell et al identified a moderating effect of BMI, such that children with overweight or obesity consumed an average of 45.6 kilocalories more than children with healthy weight following exposure to food advertisements. That type of subgroup analysis was not possible here owing to a lack of appropriate data reported in the studies (of the 5 effect sizes included in each group, 2 took place pre-2009, so were excluded here).

Strengths and Limitations

A strength of the present review is that it has linked diverse formats of food marketing exposure (including newer digital forms, such as social media influencer marketing) to a range of behavioral and health outcomes. Other analyses have reported on a single format of marketing exposure (eg, screen-based) and fewer than 3 outcomes. The certainty of evidence for critical outcomes was most frequently rated as very low or moderate, which could be regarded as a limitation. However, as has been described previously, this reflects the nature of the GRADE criteria. GRADE prioritizes RCT data with clinical outcomes and requires certainty to be downgraded where there is unexplained heterogeneity, even where results are consistent between RCTs and NRSs and show similar findings to previous reviews, as here. The substantial observed heterogeneity, also consistent with previous meta-analyses,,, was unexplained by sensitivity analyses, or subgroup analyses on overall study design (although for intake and choice outcomes, variability was reduced when only RCTs were included), marketing manipulation, marketing format, study quality, participant age, or BMI. Therefore, this heterogeneity is likely a consequence of the large number of studies and more nuanced differences in study design (eg, stimulus types and outcome measurement). Substantial variability in outcome measurement is acceptable in meta-analysis but has implications for heterogeneity and therefore GRADE assessments.

This study has limitations. As with the previous WHO review, much of the evidence lies at the proximal end of the spectrum (relative to a hierarchy of food marketing effects) with data available on food intake, choice, and preference outcomes, but far less for the more distal outcomes (body weight and NCDs). Intake studies tend to measure immediate or short-term intake (directly following exposure to the marketing stimulus), rather than assessing diet across the day or longer term. Research gaps at the distal end likely reflect the substantial methodological challenge of conducting such studies, given that weight gain (or development of diet-related NCDs) typically occurs gradually and there is limited variability in the marketing exposure children experience within any given country or culture.

The evidence is almost exclusively from higher-income countries, with only 6 studies conducted in lower-income to middle-income countries.,,,,, The representativeness of the data for those populations may be limited and there was no opportunity to examine potential differences by income. Although we could explore the association of BMI and age with some outcomes through meta-regression, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses by age (eg, child vs adolescent), socioeconomic status, gender, or rural/urban residential status owing to inadequate reporting (ie, insufficient studies with data segregated by these characteristics) and a lack of studies of adolescents. Future research should address this.

Conclusions

This review provides a comprehensive update and quantitative synthesis of evidence of food marketing associations with critical behavioral outcomes and demonstrates the evidential value of these studies. WHO has previously recommended that member states enact policies to restrict children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing and the review findings support this position.

References 126

  1. 1.
    Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128·9 million children, adolescents, and adults · 2017
    No notice
  2. 2.

    Evensen E, Wilsgaard T, Furberg A-S, Skeie G. Tracking of overweight and obesity from early childhood to adolescence in a population-based cohort—the Tromsø Study, Fit Futures. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16(1):64

    Not in our library10.1186/s12887-016-0599-5

  3. 3.
    Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 · 2020
    No notice
  4. 4.

    Swinburn BA, Sacks G, Hall KD,. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):804-814

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60813-1

  5. 5.
    Global benchmarking of children's exposure to television advertising of unhealthy foods and beverages across 22 countries · 2019
    No notice
  6. 6.

    Potvin Kent M, Pauzé E, Roy EA, de Billy N, Czoli C. Children and adolescents’ exposure to food and beverage marketing in social media apps. Pediatr Obes. 2019;14(6):e12508

    Not in our library10.1111/ijpo.12508

  7. 7.

    Pasch KE, Poulos NS. Outdoor food and beverage advertising: a saturated environment. In: Williams JD, Pasch KE, Collins CA, eds. Advances in Communication Research to Reduce Childhood Obesity. 2013:303-315

    Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4614-5511-0_14

  8. 8.

    Dixon H, Lee A, Scully M. Sports sponsorship as a cause of obesity. Curr Obes Rep. 2019;8(4):480-494

    Not in our library10.1007/s13679-019-00363-z

  9. 9.

    Rozendaal E, Buijzen M, Valkenburg P. Comparing children’s and adults’ cognitive advertising competences in the Netherlands. J Child Media. 2010;4(1):77-89

    Not in our library10.1080/17482790903407333

  10. 10.
    Identifying food marketing to teenagers: a scoping review · 2019
    Not checked
  11. 11.

    Kelly B, King MPsy L, Chapman Mnd K, Boyland E, Bauman AE, Baur LA. A hierarchy of unhealthy food promotion effects: identifying methodological approaches and knowledge gaps. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(4):e86-e95

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2014.302476

  12. 12.

    Norman J, Kelly B, Boyland E, McMahon A-T. The impact of marketing and advertising on food behaviours: evaluating the evidence for a causal relationship. Curr Nutr Rep. 2016;5(3):139-149

    Not in our library10.1007/s13668-016-0166-6

  13. 13.

    WHO Regional Office for Europe. Evaluating implementation of the WHO set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children: progress, challenges and guidance for next steps in the WHO European Region. 2018. Accessed March 31, 2022. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/384015/food-marketing-kids-eng.pdf

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    World Health Organization. Set of recommendations for the marketing of food and non-alcoholic beverages to children. 2010. Accessed March 31, 2022. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500210_eng.pdf

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G. The extent, nature and effects of food promotion to children: a review of the evidence to December 2008; prepared for the World Health Organization. 2009. Accessed March 31, 2022. https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/Evidence_Update_2009.pdf

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    World Health Organization. Tackling food marketing to children in a digital world: trans-disciplinary perspectives. children’s rights, evidence of impact, methodological challenges, regulatory options and policy implications for the WHO European Region. 2016. March 31, 2022. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/publications/2016/tackling-food-marketing-to-children-in-a-digital-world-trans-disciplinary-perspectives.-childrens-rights,-evidence-of-impact,-methodological-challenges,-regulatory-options-and-policy-implications-for-the-who-european-region-2016

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    Boyland EJ, Nolan S, Kelly B,. Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;103(2):519-533

    Not in our library10.3945/ajcn.115.120022

  18. 18.

    Sadeghirad B, Duhaney T, Motaghipisheh S, Campbell NRC, Johnston BC. Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children’s dietary intake and preference: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obes Rev. 2016;17(10):945-959

    Not in our library10.1111/obr.12445

  19. 19.

    Folkvord F, van ’t Riet J. The persuasive effect of advergames promoting unhealthy foods among children: a meta-analysis. Appetite. 2018;129:245-251

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.020

  20. 20.

    Russell SJ, Croker H, Viner RM. The effect of screen advertising on children’s dietary intake: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2019;20(4):554-568

    Not in our library10.1111/obr.12812

  21. 21.
    Food Marketing Influences Children’s Attitudes, Preferences and Consumption: A Systematic Critical Review · 2019
    No notice
  22. 22.
    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement · 2009
    No notice
  23. 23.

    World Health Organization. A Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-alcoholic Beverages to Children. World Health Organization; 2012.

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    World Health Organization. Call for data on the impact of marketing for foods and non-alcoholic beverages on children’s eating behaviours, body weight and health. 2019. https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/datacall-marketingtochildren-impact-2019/en/

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    Rohatgi A. WebPlotDigitizer, version 3.9. 2015. Accessed March 31, 2022. https://silo.tips/download/webplotdigitizer-user-manual-version-39

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 62. Cochhane. 2021

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48

    Not in our library10.18637/jss.v036.i03

  28. 28.

    Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455-463

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x

  29. 29.

    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

  30. 30.

    Viechtbauer W, Cheung MW-L. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):112-125

    Not in our library10.1002/jrsm.11

  31. 31.

    Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa T, Ebert DD. Companion R package for the guide 'doing meta-analysis in R'. 2019. Accessed March 31, 2022. https://dmetar.protectlab.org

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE,; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad

  33. 33.

    Anderson GH, Khodabandeh S, Patel B, Luhovyy BL, Bellissimo N, Mollard RC. Mealtime exposure to food advertisements while watching television increases food intake in overweight and obese girls but has a paradoxical effect in boys. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2015;40(2):162-167

    Not in our library10.1139/apnm-2014-0249

  34. 34.

    Anschutz DJ, Engels RCME, Van Strien T. Side effects of television food commercials on concurrent nonadvertised sweet snack food intakes in young children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(5):1328-1333

    Not in our library10.3945/ajcn.2008.27075

  35. 35.

    Anschutz DJ, Engels RCME, Van Strien T. Maternal encouragement to be thin moderates the effect of commercials on children’s snack food intake. Appetite. 2010;55(1):117-123

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2010.03.014

  36. 36.

    Coates AE, Hardman CA, Halford JCG, Christiansen P, Boyland EJ. Social media influencer marketing and children’s food intake: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2019;143(4):e20182554

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2018-2554

  37. 37.

    Coates AE, Hardman CA, Halford JCG, Christiansen P, Boyland EJ. The effect of influencer marketing of food and a “protective” advertising disclosure on children’s food intake. Pediatr Obes. 2019;14(10):e12540

    Not in our library10.1111/ijpo.12540

  38. 38.

    Emond JA, Lansigan RK, Ramanujam A, Gilbert-Diamond D. Randomized exposure to food advertisements and eating in the absence of hunger among preschoolers. Pediatrics. 2016;138(6):e20162361

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2016-2361

  39. 39.

    Folkvord F, Anschütz DJ, Buijzen M, Valkenburg PM. The effect of playing advergames that promote energy-dense snacks or fruit on actual food intake among children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(2):239-245

    Not in our library10.3945/ajcn.112.047126

  40. 40.

    Folkvord F, Lupiáñez-Villanueva F, Codagnone C, Bogliacino F, Veltri G, Gaskell G. Does a ‘protective’ message reduce the impact of an advergame promoting unhealthy foods to children? an experimental study in Spain and the Netherlands. Appetite. 2017;112:117-123

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2017.01.026

  41. 41.

    Folkvord F, Veling H, Hoeken H. Targeting implicit approach reactions to snack food in children: effects on intake. Health Psychol. 2016;35(8):919-922

    Not in our library10.1037/hea0000365

  42. 42.

    Folkvord F, Anschütz DJ, Nederkoorn C, Westerik H, Buijzen M. Impulsivity, “advergames,” and food intake. Pediatrics. 2014;133(6):1007-1012

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2013-3384

  43. 43.

    Folkvord F, Anschütz DJ, Wiers RW, Buijzen M. The role of attentional bias in the effect of food advertising on actual food intake among children. Appetite. 2015;84:251-258

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.016

  44. 44.

    Forman J, Halford JCG, Summe H, MacDougall M, Keller KL. Food branding influences ad libitum intake differently in children depending on weight status. results of a pilot study. Appetite. 2009;53(1):76-83

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2009.05.015

  45. 45.

    Gilbert-Diamond D, Emond J, Lansigan RK,. Television food advertisement exposure and FTO genotype in relation to excess consumption in children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2016;41(1):23-39

    Not in our library10.1038/ijo.2016.163

  46. 46.

    Gregori D, Ballali S, Gafare CE,. Investigating the obesogenic effects of marketing snacks with toys: an experimental study in Latin America. Nutr J. 2013;12(1):95

    Not in our library10.1186/1475-2891-12-95

  47. 47.

    Gregori D, Gulati A, Hochdorn A,. Food packaged with toys: an investigation on potential obesogenic effects in Indian children. Indian J Pediatr. 2014;81(1)(suppl 1):30-38

    Not in our library10.1007/s12098-014-1448-x

  48. 48.

    Gregori D, Lorenzoni G, Ballali S, Vecchio MG, Verduci E, Berchialla P. Is brand visibility on snacks packages affecting their consumption in children? results from an experimental ad-libitum study. Arch Latinoam Nutr. 2017;67:36-49.

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    Harris JL, Bargh JA, Brownell KD. Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychol. 2009;28(4):404-413

    Not in our library10.1037/a0014399

  50. 50.

    Harris JL, Haraghey KS, Lodolce M, Semenza NL. Teaching children about good health? halo effects in child-directed advertisements for unhealthy food. Pediatr Obes. 2018;13(4):256-264

    Not in our library10.1111/ijpo.12257

  51. 51.

    Harris JL, Speers SE, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. US food co branded advergames on the internet: children’s exposure and effects on snack consumption. J Child Media. 2012;6(1):51-68

    Not in our library10.1080/17482798.2011.633405

  52. 52.

    Keller KL, Kuilema LG, Lee N,. The impact of food branding on children’s eating behavior and obesity. Physiol Behav. 2012;106(3):379-386

    Not in our library10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.011

  53. 53.

    Kotler JA, Schiffman JM, Hanson KG. The influence of media characters on children’s food choices. J Health Commun. 2012;17(8):886-898

    Not in our library10.1080/10810730.2011.650822

  54. 54.

    Lorenzoni G, Rtskhladze I, Vecchio MG,. Effect of TV advertising on energy intake of Georgian children: results of an experimental study. Med J Nutrition Metab. 2017;10(3):183-192

    Not in our library10.3233/mnm-17153

  55. 55.

    Lorenzoni G, Zec S, Farias LF,. Does food advertising influence snacks consumption in Chilean children? results from an experimental ad libitum study. Arch Latinoam Nutr. 2017;67:24-35.

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Masterson TD, Bermudez MA, Austen M,. Food commercials do not affect energy intake in a laboratory meal but do alter brain responses to visual food cues in children. Appetite. 2019;132:154-165

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2018.10.010

  57. 57.

    McGale LS, Smits T, Halford JCG, Harrold JA, Boyland EJ. The influence of front-of-pack portion size images on children’s serving and intake of cereal. Pediatr Obes. 2020;15(2):e12583

    Not in our library10.1111/ijpo.12583

  58. 58.

    Norman J, Kelly B, McMahon AT,. Sustained impact of energy-dense TV and online food advertising on children’s dietary intake: a within-subject, randomised, crossover, counter-balanced trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(37)

    Not in our library10.1186/s12966-018-0672-6

  59. 59.

    Smith R, Kelly B, Yeatman H,. Advertising placement in digital game design influences children’s choices of advertised snacks: a randomized trial. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(3):404-413

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jand.2019.07.017

  60. 60.

    Smits T, Vandebosch H. Endorsing children’s appetite for healthy foods: celebrity versus non-celebrity spokes-characters. Communications. 2012;37(4):371-391

    Not in our library10.1515/commun-2012-0021

  61. 61.

    Vecchio MG, Nikolakis A, Galasso F, Baldas S, Gregori D. Even a very intense exposure to TV advertising promoting fruit consumption is not enough to make children eat more fruit: results from an experimental study in Italy. Med J Nutrition Metab. 2019;12:1-11

    Not in our library10.3233/mnm-180254

  62. 62.

    Dalton MA, Longacre MR, Drake KM,. Child-targeted fast-food television advertising exposure is linked with fast-food intake among pre-school children. Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(9):1548-1556

    Not in our library10.1017/s1368980017000520

  63. 63.

    Emond JA, Longacre MR, Drake KM,. Exposure to child-directed TV advertising and preschoolers’ intake of advertised cereals. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(2):e35-e43

    Not in our library10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.015

  64. 64.

    Fernandez MMY, Februhartanty J, Bardosono S. Association between food marketing exposure and consumption of confectioneries among pre-school children in Jakarta. Malays J Nutr. 2019;25 (supplement):S63-S73.

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    Kelly B, Freeman B, King L, Chapman K, Baur LA, Gill T. Television advertising, not viewing, is associated with negative dietary patterns in children. Pediatr Obes. 2016;11(2):158-160

    Not in our library10.1111/ijpo.12057

  66. 66.

    Minaker LM, Storey KE, Raine KD,. Associations between the perceived presence of vending machines and food and beverage logos in schools and adolescents’ diet and weight status. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(8):1350-1356

    Not in our library10.1017/s1368980011000449

  67. 67.

    Olafsdottir S, Eiben G, Prell H,. Young children’s screen habits are associated with consumption of sweetened beverages independently of parental norms. Int J Public Health. 2014;59(1):67-75

    Not in our library10.1007/s00038-013-0473-2

  68. 68.

    Scully M, Wakefield M, Niven P,; NaSSDA Study Team. Association between food marketing exposure and adolescents’ food choices and eating behaviors. Appetite. 2012;58(1):1-5

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.020

  69. 69.

    Silva RNMT, Duarte DA, de Oliveira AMG. The influence of television on the food habits of schoolchildren and its association with dental caries. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020;6(1):24-32

    Not in our library10.1002/cre2.244

  70. 70.

    Aerts G, Smits T. Do depicted suggestions of portion size on-pack impact how much (un)healthy food children consume. Int J Consum Stud. 2019;43(3):237-244

    Not in our library10.1111/ijcs.12503

  71. 71.

    Boyland EJ, Harrold JA, Dovey TM,. Food choice and overconsumption: effect of a premium sports celebrity endorser. J Pediatr. 2013;163(2):339-343

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.059

  72. 72.

    Brown CL, Matherne CE, Bulik CM,. Influence of product placement in children’s movies on children’s snack choices. Appetite. 2017;114:118-124

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.022

  73. 73.

    Dovey TM, Taylor L, Stow R, Boyland EJ, Halford JCG. Responsiveness to healthy television (TV) food advertisements/commercials is only evident in children under the age of seven with low food neophobia. Appetite. 2011;56(2):440-446

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.017

  74. 74.

    Leonard B, Campbell MC, Manning KC. Kids, caregivers, and cartoons: the impact of licensed characters on food choices and consumption. J Public Policy Mark. 2019;38(2):214-231

    Not in our library10.1177/0743915619827919

  75. 75.

    Masserot C, Brée J. Publicité et obésité enfantine. limpact des annonces publicitaires télévisées sur les choix alimentaires des enfants. Management & Avenir. 2010;37(7):97-119

    Not in our library10.3917/mav.037.0097

  76. 76.

    Arendt F, Naderer B, Abdollahi M, Mittelberger A, Surzhyk O, Zhou L. Television commercials and fading behavioral brand choice effects in Austrian children. J Child Media. 2015;9(4):435-452

    Not in our library10.1080/17482798.2015.1089299

  77. 77.

    Boyland EJ, Kavanagh-Safran M, Halford JCG. Exposure to ‘healthy’ fast food meal bundles in television advertisements promotes liking for fast food but not healthier choices in children. Br J Nutr. 2015;113(6):1012-1018

    Not in our library10.1017/s0007114515000082

  78. 78.

    Bruce AS, Pruitt SW, Ha O-R,. The influence of televised food commercials on children’s food choices: evidence from ventromedial prefrontal cortex activations. J Pediatr. 2016;177:27-32.e1

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.06.067

  79. 79.

    Dias M, Agante L. Can advergames boost children’s healthier eating habits? a comparison between healthy and non-healthy food. J Consum Behav. 2011;10(3):152-160

    Not in our library10.1002/cb.359

  80. 80.

    Dixon H, Niven P, Scully M, Wakefield M. Food marketing with movie character toys: effects on young children’s preferences for unhealthy and healthier fast food meals. Appetite. 2017;117:342-350

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2017.07.014

  81. 81.

    Dixon H, Scully M, Niven P,. Effects of nutrient content claims, sports celebrity endorsements and premium offers on pre-adolescent children’s food preferences: experimental research. Pediatr Obes. 2014;9(2):e47-e57

    Not in our library10.1111/j.2047-6310.2013.00169.x

  82. 82.

    Ferguson CJ, Contreras S, Kilburn M. Advertising and fictional media effects on healthy eating choices in early and later childhood. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2014;3(3):164-173

    Not in our library10.1037/ppm0000016

  83. 83.

    Ferguson CJ, Muñoz ME, Medrano MR. Advertising influences on young children’s food choices and parental influence. J Pediatr. 2012;160(3):452-455

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.08.023

  84. 84.

    Gatou T, Mamai-Homata E, Koletsi-Kounari H, Polychronopoulou A. The short-term effects of television advertisements of cariogenic foods on children’s dietary choices. Int Dent J. 2016;66(5):287-294

    Not in our library10.1111/idj.12229

  85. 85.

    Hobin EP, Hammond DG, Daniel S, Hanning RM, Manske S. The Happy Meal effect: the impact of toy premiums on healthy eating among children in Ontario, Canada. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(4):e244-e248

    Not in our library10.1007/bf03404228

  86. 86.

    Matthes J, Naderer B. Children’s consumption behavior in response to food product placements in movies. J Consum Behav. 2015;14(2):127-136

    Not in our library10.1002/cb.1507

  87. 87.

    McDarby F, O’Hora D, O’Shea D, Byrne M. Taking the sweetness out of the ‘Share a Coke’ marketing campaign: the influence of personalized labelling on elementary school children’s bottled drink choices. Pediatr Obes. 2018;13(1):63-69

    Not in our library10.1111/ijpo.12193

  88. 88.

    Naderer B, Matthes J, Binder A,. Shaping children’s healthy eating habits with food placements? food placements of high and low nutritional value in cartoons, children’s BMI, food-related parental mediation strategies, and food choice. Appetite. 2018;120:644-653

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.023

  89. 89.

    Naderer B, Matthes J, Marquart F, Mayrhofer M. Children’s attitudinal and behavioral reactions to product placements: investigating the role of placement frequency, placement integration, and parental mediation. Int J Advert. 2018;37(2):236-255

    Not in our library10.1080/02650487.2016.1218672

  90. 90.

    Naderer B, Matthes J, Zeller P. Placing snacks in children’s movies: cognitive, evaluative, and conative effects of product placements with character product interaction. Int J Advert. 2018;37(6):852-870

    Not in our library10.1080/02650487.2017.1348034

  91. 91.

    Putnam MM, Cotto CE, Calvert SL. Character apps for children’s snacks: effects of character awareness on snack selection and consumption patterns. Games Health J. 2018;7(2):116-120

    Not in our library10.1089/g4h.2017.0097

  92. 92.

    Royne MB, Kowalczyk CM, Levy M, Fox AK. Milk, juice, or cola? exploring the effect of product placement on children’s attitudes and behavior. Health Mark Q. 2017;34(2):128-141

    Not in our library10.1080/07359683.2016.1275241

  93. 93.

    Tarabashkina L, Quester P, Crouch R. Food advertising, children’s food choices and obesity: interplay of cognitive defences and product evaluation: an experimental study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2016;40(4):581-586

    Not in our library10.1038/ijo.2015.234

  94. 94.

    Toomey DA, Francis AL. Branded product placement and pre-teenaged consumers: influence on brand preference and choice. Young Consumers. 2013;14(2):180-192

    Not in our library10.1108/17473611311325573

  95. 95.

    Ülger B. Packages with cartoon trade characters versus advertising: an empirical examination of preschoolers’ food preferences. J Food Prod Mark. 2008;15(1):104-117

    Not in our library10.1080/10454440802470649

  96. 96.

    Uribe R, Fuentes-García A. The effects of TV unhealthy food brand placement on children. its separate and joint effect with advertising. Appetite. 2015;91:165-172

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2015.03.030

  97. 97.

    Agante L, Pascoal A. How much is “too much” for a brand to use an advergame with children? J Prod Brand Manage. 2019;28(2):287-299

    Not in our library10.1108/jpbm-08-2017-1554

  98. 98.

    Hudson S, Elliott C. Measuring the impact of product placement on children using digital brand integration. J Food Prod Mark. 2013;19(3):176-200

    Not in our library10.1080/10454446.2013.724370

  99. 99.

    Pempek TA, Calvert SL. Tipping the balance: use of advergames to promote consumption of nutritious foods and beverages by low-income African American children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(7):633-637

    Not in our library10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.71

  100. 100.

    Ueda MH, Porto RB, Vasconcelos LA. Publicidade de alimentos e escolhas alimentares de crianças. Psic Teor Pesq. 2014;30:53-61

    Not in our library10.1590/s0102-37722014000100007

  101. 101.

    McAlister AR, Cornwell TB. Collectible toys as marketing tools: understanding preschool children’s responses to foods paired with premiums. J Public Policy Mark. 2012;31(2):195-205

    Not in our library10.1509/jppm.10.067

  102. 102.

    Jones SC, Kervin L. An experimental study on the effects of exposure to magazine advertising on children’s food choices. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(8):1337-1344

    Not in our library10.1017/s1368980010002983

  103. 103.

    Letona P, Chacon V, Roberto C, Barnoya J. Effects of licensed characters on children’s taste and snack preferences in Guatemala, a low/middle income country. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014;38(11):1466-1469

    Not in our library10.1038/ijo.2014.38

  104. 104.

    McGale LS, Halford JCG, Harrold JA, Boyland EJ. The influence of brand equity characters on children’s food preferences and choices. J Pediatr. 2016;177:33-38

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.06.025

  105. 105.
    Can a Toy Encourage Lower Calorie Meal Bundle Selection in Children? A Field Experiment on the Reinforcing Effects of Toys on Food Choice. · 2017
    Not checked
  106. 106.

    Roberto CA, Baik J, Harris JL, Brownell KD. Influence of licensed characters on children’s taste and snack preferences. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):88-93

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2009-3433

  107. 107.

    Ogle AD, Graham DJ, Lucas-Thompson RG, Roberto CA. Influence of cartoon media characters on children’s attention to and preference for food and beverage products. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(2):265-270.e2

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jand.2016.08.012

  108. 108.

    Ares G, Arrúa A, Antúnez L,. Influence of label design on children’s perception of two snack foods: comparison of rating and choice-based conjoint analysis. Food Qual Prefer. 2016;53:1-8

    Not in our library10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.006

  109. 109.

    Castonguay J. Sugar and sports: age differences in children’s responses to a high sugar cereal advertisement portraying physical activities. Communic Res. 2019;46(5):579-596

    Not in our library10.1177/0093650215587357

  110. 110.

    de Droog SM, Valkenburg PM, Buijzen M. Using brand characters to promote young children’s liking of and purchase requests for fruit. J Health Commun. 2011;16(1):79-89

    Not in our library10.1080/10810730.2010.529487

  111. 111.

    Dixon H, Scully M, Wakefield M, Kelly B, Pettigrew S. Community junior sport sponsorship: an online experiment assessing children’s responses to unhealthy food v. pro-health sponsorship options. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(6):1176-1185

    Not in our library10.1017/s1368980017003561

  112. 112.

    Gunnarsdottir I, Thorsdottir I. Should we use popular brands to promote healthy eating among children? Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(12):2064-2067

    Not in our library10.1017/s1368980010000893

  113. 113.

    Lapierre MA, Vaala SE, Linebarger DL. Influence of licensed spokescharacters and health cues on children’s ratings of cereal taste. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(3):229-234

    Not in our library10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.300

  114. 114.

    Neyens E, Smits T, Boyland E. Transferring game attitudes to the brand: persuasion from age 6 to 14. Int J Advert. 2017;36(5):724-742

    Not in our library10.1080/02650487.2017.1349029

  115. 115.

    Arrúa A, Vidal L, Antúnez L,. Influence of label design on children’s perception of 2 snack foods. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2017;49(3):211-217.e1

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jneb.2016.10.021

  116. 116.

    Boyland EJ, Harrold JA, Kirkham TC,. Food commercials increase preference for energy-dense foods, particularly in children who watch more television. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):e93-e100

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2010-1859

  117. 117.

    Hartmann M, Cash SB, Yeh C-H, Landwehr SC, McAlister AR. Children’s purchase behavior in the snack market: can branding or lower prices motivate healthier choices? Appetite. 2017;117:247-254

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2017.06.014

  118. 118.

    Levin AM, Levin IP. Packaging of healthy and unhealthy food products for children and parents: the relative influence of licensed characters and brand names. J Consum Behav. 2010;9(5):393-402

    Not in our library10.1002/cb.326

  119. 119.

    Pettigrew S, Tarabashkina L, Roberts M, Quester P, Chapman K, Miller C. The effects of television and internet food advertising on parents and children. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(12):2205-2212

    Not in our library10.1017/s1368980013001067

  120. 120.

    Heard AM, Harris JL, Liu S, Schwartz MB, Li X. Piloting an online grocery store simulation to assess children’s food choices. Appetite. 2016;96:260-267

    Not in our library10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.020

  121. 121.

    Simões I, Agante L. The impact of event sponsorship on Portuguese children’s brand image and purchase intentions. Int J Advert. 2014;33(3):533-556

    Not in our library10.2501/ija-33-3-533-556

  122. 122.

    Castetbon K, Harris JL, Schwartz MB. Purchases of ready-to-eat cereals vary across US household sociodemographic categories according to nutritional value and advertising targets. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(8):1456-1465

    Not in our library10.1017/s1368980011003065

  123. 123.

    Drewnowski A, Michels S, Leroy D. The impact of crunchy Wednesdays on Happy Meal fruit orders: analysis of sales data in France, 2009-2013. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2017;49(3):236-240.e1

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jneb.2016.10.005

  124. 124.

    Ghimire N, Rao A. Comparative evaluation of the influence of television advertisements on children and caries prevalence. Glob Health Action. 2013;6(1):20066

    Not in our library10.3402/gha.v6i0.20066

  125. 125.

    Reynolds A, Mann J, Cummings J, Winter N, Mete E, Te Morenga L. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):434-445

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31809-9

  126. 126.

    Polanin JR, Snilstveit B. Converting between effect sizes. Campbell Syst Rev. 2016;12(1):1-13

    Not in our library10.4073/cmpn.2016.3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.