Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33947116›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Quantifying Child-Appeal: The Development and Mixed-Methods Validation of a Methodology for Evaluating Child-Appealing Marketing on Product Packaging.

Christine Mulligan, Monique Potvin Kent, Laura Vergeer, Anthea K Christoforou, Mary R L'Abbé

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Sex differences in children's exposure to food and beverage advertisements on broadcast television in four cities in Canada.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christine MulliganDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada.
Monique Potvin KentSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada.
Laura VergeerDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3982-5002
Anthea K ChristoforouDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada.
Mary R L'AbbéDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7688-7558
University of Toronto · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is no standardized or validated definition or measure of "child-appeal" used in food and beverage marketing policy or research, which can result in heterogeneous outcomes. Therefore, this pilot study aimed to develop and validate the child-appealing packaging (CAP) coding tool, which measures the presence, type, and power of child-appealing marketing on food packaging based on the marketing techniques displayed. Children (n = 15) participated in a mixed-methods validation study comprising a binary classification (child-appealing packaging? Yes/No) and ranking (order of preference/marketing power) activity using mock breakfast cereal packages (quantitative) and focus group discussions (qualitative). The percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa statistic, Spearman's Rank correlation, and cross-classification analyses tested the agreement between children's and the CAP tool's evaluation of packages' child-appeal and marketing power (criterion validity) and the content analysis tested the relevance of the CAP marketing techniques (content validity). There was an 80% agreement, and "moderate" pairwise agreement (κ [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.35, 0.73]) between children/CAP binary classifications and "strong" correlation (

Indexed as

FoodMarketingBeveragesChildFood PackagingHumansPilot Projectschild-appealing marketingfood marketingfood packagingmarketing powermarketing techniquesmarketing to kidsmixed methodsproduct packagingvalidation

Identifiers

PMID33947116
PMCPMC8124606
OpenAlexW3159432943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.