Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35127363›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022

Marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages to youth through U.S. university pouring rights contracts.

Katherine Marx, Eva Greenthal, Sara Ribakove, Elyse R Grossman, Stephanie Lucas, Martha Ruffin, Sara E Benjamin-Neelon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

7 authors.

Katherine MarxCenter for Science in the Public Interest, 1220 L St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, USA.
Eva GreenthalCenter for Science in the Public Interest, 1220 L St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, USA.
Sara RibakoveCenter for Science in the Public Interest, 1220 L St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, USA.
Elyse R GrossmanDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Stephanie LucasDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Martha RuffinDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Sara E Benjamin-NeelonDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Child-targeted marketing can influence children's food preferences and childhood consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with negative health outcomes in both childhood and adulthood. This study explores how beverage companies are using pouring rights contracts (PRCs) with U.S. public universities to market SSBs to youth under 18 years of age. We obtained 139 PRCs (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi, 8 Gatorade) from 132 universities between June 2019 and August 2020. Each contract was coded by two reviewers who extracted quotes relevant to youth-targeted marketing activities. Twenty-two contracts in our sample (16%) contained a total of 25 provisions related to youth-targeted marketing. Nearly all youth-targeted marketing provisions (n = 24 of 25) were tied to university athletics. Most provisions (n = 19) described the marketing of specific beverages or involved the use of brand names that are also beverages (e.g., "Gatorade," "Coca-Cola"). Fifteen contracts included advertising or support for youth summer camps; five contracts allowed the beverage company to sponsor free experiences for children at university athletic events; three contracts allowed advertising at high school athletic events hosted at university facilities; and two contracts established programs for "underprivileged" or "disadvantaged" youth. Five contracts acknowledged that their provisions may be affected by laws or self-regulatory policies that limit advertising to children. Beverage companies should reconsider marketing to youth through PRCs, universities should carefully consider PRCs with youth-targeted provisions, and the government should further regulate and prevent youth-targeted marketing.

Indexed as

CFBAI, Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising InitiativeFood marketing to childrenPA, public addressPouring rights contractsPRCs, pouring rights contractsSSBs, sugar-sweetened beveragesSugar-sweetened beverage marketing

Identifiers

PMID35127363
PMCPMC8800013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.