4.1 Article

Impact of a Capacity-Building Intervention on Food Marketing Features in Recreation Facilities

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 52, Issue 10, Pages 935-943

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2020.03.009

Keywords

food marketing; recreation and sports facilities; capacity building; children; policy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore the impact of a capacity-building intervention (CBI) to support implementing provincial nutrition guidelines on food marketing in recreation facilities (RFs). Design: Randomized controlled trial within a natural experiment: food marketing in RFs from 3 guideline provinces randomly assigned to intervention (GL+CBI) or comparison (GL-ONLY) was compared with facilities in 1 province without guidelines (NO-GL). Food marketing was assessed by the Food and Beverage Marketing Assessment Tool for Settings. Setting: Canadian provinces with/without voluntary nutrition guidelines for RFs. Participants: 51 RFs. Intervention: 18-month CBI. Main Outcome Measures: Change in Food and Beverage Marketing Assessment Tool for Settings scores and marketing features between baseline and follow-up across groups. Analysis: Kruskal-Wallis with post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: No significant differences in food marketing features between baseline and follow-up across groups except for a change in food marketing frequency (P = 0.045). The increase in frequency in NO-GL (median, 6.0; interquartile range, -2.0 to 8.5) was significantly greater than changes in the GL+CBI (P = 0.033) and GL-ONLY sites (P = 0.049). Conclusions and Implications: Capacity-building was not associated with improved food marketing features potentially because of nonmandated nutrition guidelines, low priority for change, and vague or narrow facility goals and guidelines. Nutrition guidelines with specific unhealthy food marketing restrictions should be mandated and supported.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available