Skip to main content

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for associations between weight status and strong ad responses

From: Finding the keys to successful adult-targeted advertisements on obesity prevention: an experimental audience testing study

 

Message acceptance

Argument strength

Personalised perceived effectiveness

Negative emotional impact

Become a swapper

0.92

(0.61-1.38)

0.92

(0.65-1.32)

2.62**

(1.82-3.75)

1.20

(0.55-2.63)

Toxic fat

1.11

(0.71-1.74)

1.24

(0.84-1.85)

2.16**

(1.52-3.06)

2.42**

(1.62-3.61)

Take life on

1.00

(0.68-1.46)

1.13

(0.80-1.59)

2.30**

(1.60-3.30)

1.56

(0.64-3.85)

Measure up

1.49

(0.95-2.35)

1.48

(1.00-2.18)

3.23**

(2.24-4.65)

2.27*

(1.39-3.72)

Piece of string

0.90

(0.60-1.35)

1.07

(0.74-1.54)

2.01**

(1.42-2.85)

2.33*

(1.35-4.01)

Full monty

0.97

(0.67-1.42)

1.03

(0.73-1.44)

2.33**

(1.57-3.45)

1.51

(0.86-2.63)

Correctly identified

1.05

(0.74-1.49)

0.85

(0.59-1.21)

1.57

(1.07-2.31)

1.53

(0.73-3.20)

Why am I fat

1.20

(0.83-1.72)

0.86

(0.61-1.22)

1.74*

(1.15-2.63)

1.29

(0.80-2.09)

  1. Footnote: For all models, healthy weight is the reference category (1.00). Significant difference between groups *P < 0.01; **P < 0.001. Analyses adjusted for gender, age group, education level, parental status, and previous exposure to the ad
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us