The effects of food advertising and cognitive load on food choices

BMC Public Health

Table 2 Effect of food advertising on the type and quantity of food chosen

	Number of calories^a		Number of unhealthy snacks^b
	Coefficient	[95% Confidence interval]^c	Coefficient	[95% Confidence interval]^c
Model 1: Food advertising alone
Food advertising	65	[10 – 121]	1.28	[1.07 – 1.53]
Model 2: Food advertising with additional controls ^d
Food advertising	67	[11 – 122]	1.28	[1.07 – 1.53]
Female	-2	[–66 – 62]	1.00	[0.82 – 1.23]
Foreign	211	[53 – 369]	1.99	[1.16 – 3.43]
High income	130	[–18 – 278]	1.44	[0.85 – 2.45]
Low income	178	[28 – 327]	1.80	[1.05 – 3.07]
Diet quality	19	[–17 – 54]	1.03	[0.92 – 1.15]
Fast food	-3	[–18 – 12]	1.00	[0.95 – 1.04]
Regular exercise	-39	[–97 – 19]	0.91	[0.76 – 1.10]
Year degree expected	1.6	[–21 – 24]	1.03	[0.95 – 1.10]
Model 3: Food advertising with interaction effect
Food advertising	36	[–43 – 114]	1.14	[0.89 – 1.47]
High cognitive load	-22	[–101 – 57]	0.85	[0.65 – 1.11]
Food advertising + High cognitive load	59	[–51 – 169]	1.25	[0.88 – 1.79]
Equivalence tests:
Interaction ≤ 50 kcal		p-value = 0.56
Interaction effect has a rate ratio ≤ 1.25				p-value = 0.50

ISSN: 1471-2458