Prowse Rachel, Warken Melanie, Tran Trudy, Olstad Dana Lee, Kirk Sara Fl, Raine Kim D, Hobin Erin
Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 300 Prince Philip Drive, St. John's, NL A1B 3V6, Canada.
Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2025 Jan 1;50:1-9. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2024-0517.
We aimed to evaluate whether food marketing frequency in recreation and sport facilities (RSFs) in Canada differed by the presence of food sponsorship policies, food sponsorship agreements, and food service contracts. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 85 RSFs using an observational audit using the Food and Beverage Marketing Assessment Tool for Settings (FoodMATS) and a facility survey. All instances of food marketing in RSF were recorded in the FoodMATS and the presence of food sponsorship policies, food sponsorship agreements, and food service contracts from the last fiscal year were reported in the survey by facility managers/directors. Mann-Whitney U tests evaluated differences in food marketing frequency by presence of policies (yes/no), agreements (1+/0), and contracts (1+/0). Food marketing frequency did not differ between RSF with and without a food sponsorship policy (14.5 vs. 18.0, = 0.37). Food marketing frequency was significantly greater in RSF with food sponsorship agreements (26.5 vs. 12.5, < 0.001) and food service contracts (60.0 vs. 21.0, < 0.001), compared to RSF without. Only 22.4% and 16.8% of food marketing instances were linked to current food sponsorship agreements and food service contracts, respectively. Sponsorship agreements and contracts may contribute to food marketing in RSF, but they do not explain all marketing instances. Future research should seek to clarify the origin of food marketing exposures, and the opportunities to use policy documents (e.g., facility policies, sponsorship agreements, and food service contracts) to improve healthy food environments, including food marketing in RSF.
我们旨在评估加拿大娱乐和体育设施(RSF)中的食品营销频率是否因食品赞助政策、食品赞助协议和食品服务合同的存在而有所不同。我们使用针对场所的食品和饮料营销评估工具(FoodMATS)以及设施调查,对85个RSF进行了横断面研究。RSF中所有食品营销实例都记录在FoodMATS中,设施经理/主管在调查中报告了上一财政年度食品赞助政策、食品赞助协议和食品服务合同的存在情况。曼-惠特尼U检验评估了按政策(是/否)、协议(有/无)和合同(有/无)存在情况划分的食品营销频率差异。有食品赞助政策和没有食品赞助政策的RSF之间的食品营销频率没有差异(14.5对18.0,P = 0.37)。与没有食品赞助协议和食品服务合同的RSF相比,有食品赞助协议(26.5对12.5,P < 0.001)和食品服务合同(60.0对21.0,P < 0.001)的RSF的食品营销频率显著更高。分别只有22.4%和16.8%的食品营销实例与当前的食品赞助协议和食品服务合同有关。赞助协议和合同可能会促进RSF中的食品营销,但它们并不能解释所有的营销实例。未来的研究应致力于阐明食品营销暴露的来源,以及利用政策文件(如设施政策、赞助协议和食品服务合同)改善健康食品环境的机会,包括RSF中的食品营销。