Assessing exposure to outdoor advertisement for products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS); is self-reported exposure a useful exposure metric?

Abstract

Abstract Background Exposure to advertising of unhealthy commodities such as fast-food and gambling is recognised as a risk factor for developing non-communicable diseases. Assessment of the impact of such advertisement and the evaluation of the impact of any policies to restrict such advertisements on public health are reliant on the quality of the exposure assessment. A straightforward method for assessing exposure is to ask people whether they noticed any such advertisements in their neighbourhoods. However, the validity of this method is unclear. We assessed the associations between measured exposure to outdoor advertising, self-reported exposure, and self-reported consumption. Methods We collected exposure information in January-March 2022 using two methods: (i) through a resident survey investigating advertising and consumption of unhealthy products, distributed across Bristol and neighbouring South Gloucestershire, and (ii) through in-person auditing. Self-reported exposure was obtained from the resident survey (N = 2,560) and measured exposure from photos obtained for all Council owned advertisement sites (N = 973 bus stops). Both data sources were geographically linked at lower-super-output-area level. Reporting ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and Cohen’s kappas, are presented. Results 24% of advertisements displayed food and/or drink advertising. Bristol respondents in neighbourhoods displaying food/drink adverts were more likely to also report seeing these adverts compared to those in neighbourhoods without food/drink adverts (59% vs. 51%, RR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.01–1.31). There was no such association in South Gloucestershire (26% vs. 32%, RR = 0.82, 95%CI 0.58–1.14). Respondents in both Bristol and South Gloucestershire who recalled seeing advertising for unhealthy food and drink products were more likely to consume them (e.g. for fast-food: 22% vs. 11%, RR = 2.01, 95%CI 1.68–2.42). There was no such association between measured food and drink adverts in respondents’ local areas and self-reported consumption of HFSS product (90.1% vs. 90.7%, RR = 0.99, 95%CI 0.96–1.03). Conclusions Self-reported outdoor advertisement exposure is correlated with measured exposure, making this a useful methodology for population studies. It has the added advantage that it correlates with consumption. However, given that measurement error can be significant and self-reported exposure is known to be susceptible to various biases, inferences from studies using this exposure metric should be made with caution.