4.5 Article

Youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 561-565

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cku060

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Programme
  2. Executive Agency for Health and Consumers, European Commission [EAHC/2011/Health/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Exposure of young people to alcohol advertising is a risk factor for underage drinking. This study assessed youth exposure to television alcohol advertising in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, from December 2010 to May 2011. Methods: A negative binomial regression model predicted number of alcohol advertisements from the proportion of the television viewership in each age group. This allowed comparison of alcohol advertisement incidence for each youth age category relative to an adult reference category. Results: In the UK, those aged 10-15 years were significantly more exposed to alcohol advertisements per viewing hour than adults aged a parts per thousand yen25 years [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.11; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.06, 1.18; P < 0.01]; in the Netherlands, those aged 13-19 years were more exposed per viewing hour than adults aged a parts per thousand yen 20 years (IRR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.39; P < 0.01). Conversely, in Germany, those aged 10-15 years were less exposed to alcohol advertisements than adults aged a parts per thousand yen25 years (IRR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.85; P < 0.01). In each country, young children (aged 4-9 years in the UK and Germany, 6-12 years in the Netherlands) were less exposed than adults. Conclusion: Adolescents in the UK and the Netherlands, but not Germany, had higher exposure to television alcohol advertising relative to adults than would be expected from their television viewing. Further work across a wider range of countries is needed to understand the relationship between national policies and youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据