The impact of unhealthy food sponsorship vs. pro-health sponsorship models on young adults’ food preferences: a randomised controlled trial

Table 3 Attitudinal ratings of unhealthy and healthier food sponsor brands^~ by sponsorship condition

	Unhealthy food sponsor brand				Healthier food sponsor brand
Sponsorship condition	Predicted mean	B (95% CI)	β	p	Predicted mean	B (95% CI)	β	p
Non-food branding	4.65	Ref			5.05	Ref
Unhealthy food branding	5.07	0.41 (0.18, 0.64)	0.12	< 0.001	5.09	0.04 (−0.17, 0.26)	0.01	0.682
Healthier food branding	4.85	0.20 (−0.04, 0.43)	0.06	0.098	5.34	0.29 (0.07, 0.50)	0.09	0.010
Obesity prevention campaign branding	4.72	0.06 (−0.17, 0.30)	0.02	0.583	5.12	0.07 (−0.14, 0.29)	0.02	0.498

^~Attitudes towards the obesity prevention campaign brands were not assessed. B unstandardised regression coefficient, CI confidence interval, β standardised regression coefficient, Ref reference category in linear regression model. Linear regression analyses included product category as a covariate. Boldfaced results are significant at p < 0.05

ISSN: 1471-2458