de Bruijn Avalon, Tanghe Jacqueline, de Leeuw Rebecca, Engels Rutger, Anderson Peter, Beccaria Franca, Bujalski Michał, Celata Corrado, Gosselt Jordy, Schreckenberg Dirk, Słodownik Luiza, Wothge Jördis, van Dalen Wim
STAP (Dutch Institute for Alcohol Policy), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
European Centre on Monitoring Alcohol Marketing (EUCAM), Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1774-83. doi: 10.1111/add.13455. Epub 2016 Aug 2.
This is the first study to examine the effect of alcohol marketing exposure on adolescents' drinking in a cross-national context. The aim was to examine reciprocal processes between exposure to a wide range of alcohol marketing types and adolescent drinking, controlled for non-alcohol branded media exposure.
Prospective observational study (11-12- and 14-17-month intervals), using a three-wave autoregressive cross-lagged model.
School-based sample in 181 state-funded schools in Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland.
A total of 9075 eligible respondents participated in the survey (mean age 14 years, 49.5% male.
Adolescents reported their frequency of past-month drinking and binge drinking. Alcohol marketing exposure was measured by a latent variable with 13 items measuring exposure to online alcohol marketing, televised alcohol advertising, alcohol sport sponsorship, music event/festival sponsorship, ownership alcohol-branded promotional items, reception of free samples and exposure to price offers. Confounders were age, gender, education, country, internet use, exposure to non-alcohol sponsored football championships and television programmes without alcohol commercials.
The analyses showed one-directional long-term effects of alcohol marketing exposure on drinking (exposure T1 on drinking T2: β = 0.420 (0.058), P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.324-0.515; exposure T2 on drinking T3: β = 0.200 (0.044), P < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.127-0.272; drinking T1 and drinking T2 on exposure: P > 0.05). Similar results were found in the binge drinking model (exposure T1 on binge T2: β = 0.409 (0.054), P < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.320-0.499; exposure T2 on binge T3: β = 0.168 (0.050), P = 0.001, 95% CI = 0.086-0.250; binge T1 and binge T2 on exposure: P > 0.05).
There appears to be a one-way effect of alcohol marketing exposure on adolescents' alcohol use over time, which cannot be explained by either previous drinking or exposure to non-alcohol-branded marketing.
这是第一项在跨国背景下研究酒精营销曝光对青少年饮酒影响的研究。目的是检验接触多种酒精营销类型与青少年饮酒之间的相互作用,并对非酒精品牌媒体曝光进行控制。
前瞻性观察研究(间隔11 - 12个月和14 - 17个月),采用三波自回归交叉滞后模型。
德国、意大利、荷兰、波兰181所公立学校的校内样本。
共有9075名符合条件的受访者参与了调查(平均年龄14岁,男性占49.5%)。
青少年报告过去一个月饮酒和暴饮的频率。酒精营销曝光通过一个潜变量来衡量,该潜变量由13个项目组成,测量对网络酒精营销、电视酒精广告、酒精体育赞助、音乐活动/节日赞助、拥有酒精品牌促销物品、接收免费样品以及接触价格优惠的曝光情况。混杂因素包括年龄、性别、教育程度、国家、互联网使用情况、接触非酒精赞助的足球锦标赛以及无酒精广告的电视节目。
分析显示酒精营销曝光对饮酒有单向长期影响(T1期曝光对T2期饮酒:β = 0.420(0.058),P < 0.001,95%置信区间(CI)= 0.324 - 0.515;T2期曝光对T3期饮酒:β = 0.200(0.044),P < 0.001,95% CI = 0.127 - 0.272;T1期饮酒和T2期饮酒对曝光:P > 0.05)。在暴饮模型中也发现了类似结果(T1期曝光对T2期暴饮:β = 0.409(0.054),P < 0.001,95% CI = 0.320 - 0.499;T2期曝光对T3期暴饮:β = 0.168(0.050),P = 0.001,95% CI = 0.086 - 0.250;T1期暴饮和T2期暴饮对曝光:P > 0.05)。
随着时间推移,酒精营销曝光似乎对青少年饮酒有单向影响,这既不能用先前的饮酒情况来解释,也不能用接触非酒精品牌营销来解释。