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

Table 4 Event-sponsor fit perceptions of sponsor brands by sponsorship condition

	Unhealthy food sponsor brand				Healthier food sponsor brand				Obesity prevention campaign sponsor brand
Sponsorship condition	Predicted mean	B (95% CI)	β	p	Predicted mean	B (95% CI)	β	p	Predicted mean	B (95% CI)	β	p
Non-food branding	3.29	Ref			4.62	Ref			4.70	Ref
Unhealthy food branding	3.90	0.61 (0.36, 0.86)	0.16	< 0.001	4.70	0.08 (−0.15, 0.31)	0.02	0.494	4.72	0.02 (−0.22, 0.25)	0.01	0.872
Healthier food branding	3.66	0.37 (0.12, 0.62)	0.09	0.004	5.10	0.48 (0.25, 0.72)	0.14	< 0.001	4.77	0.07 (−0.16, 0.31)	0.02	0.539
Obesity prevention campaign branding	3.58	0.29 (0.04, 0.54)	0.07	0.023	4.73	0.12 (−0.11, 0.35)	0.04	0.316	5.19	0.49 (0.25, 0.73)	0.14	< 0.001

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