ArticleHealth promotion international2025
Restricting outdoor advertising of unhealthy food: can Australia's food category-based classification system be applied consistently?
Article in Health promotion international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most outdoor food advertising (e.g. billboards and bus stops) features foods that are considered unhealthy. The most important technical challenge when designing policies to restrict unhealthy outdoor food advertising is defining 'unhealthy food'. To date, most restriction policies have used nutrient profiling models (i.e. foods are classified according to their nutritional composition) to determine which foods and beverages may be advertised. In Australia, state governments have endorsed a food category-based classification system, with no prescribed nutrient limits, which may create ambiguity when multiple users are identifying food advertisements to be restricted. This study aimed to assess the consistency of decisions (inter-rater reliability) using a food category-based system to assess outdoor advertisements. Three coders independently assessed outdoor food advertisements (n 550) around 64 schools in metropolitan Perth, Western Australia, using the Council of Australian Governments 'National interim guide to reduce children's exposure to unhealthy food and drink promotion'. Overall, 78.7% of outdoor advertisements were restricted by at least one of three coders and 25.5% by all three; inter-rater reliability was fair [0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24, 0.34]. The strongest agreement was for confectionery (κ = 0.94; 95% CI 0.89, 0.99) and desserts, ice cream, and ice confections (κ = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94, 1.04) while the poorest agreement was for brand advertising (κ = 0.04; 95% CI -0.01, 0.09). This study found that the Australian-government-endorsed model could not be consistently applied to assess outdoor food advertising, apart from the narrowly defined categories of confectionery and desserts. Recommendations to reduce ambiguity and policy implications are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.