Monitoring changes in community support for policies on obesity prevention

7Citations
Citations of this article
55Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the New South Wales (NSW) community's support for obesity prevention policies and concern for food marketing and promotion issues, and to determine any demographic differences or changes over time. Methods: In 2013 (n=2474), 2016 (n=1602) and 2019 (n=1613) a sample of adults who were representative of the NSW population for age, gender, education and location was asked about support for policy initiatives that influence the food environment. Analysis identified the characteristics of those who supported policies and variation in support over time. Results: There were limited changes in support over time; however, support for many policies was strong and sustained. In 2019, support was highest for regulation of claims about nutrition (77.2%), and health warning labels (75.7%). Support for a ban on unhealthy food advertising that targets children (64.6%) had decreased since 2013. Women, older people and those who were aware that obesity was a risk factor for cancer were generally more likely to support policies. Parents were more likely than non-parents to be concerned about positioning unhealthy food at supermarket checkouts (OR 1.32) and unhealthy outdoor advertisements (OR 1.22). Concern increased in 2019 for unhealthy marketing on the internet (OR 1.21). Conclusions: This study shows public support for policy options at moderate to high levels but not increasing in the six-year study period. Implications for public health: These results form part of a package that, along with the well-established evidence, makes the case for policy action in Australia.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Watson, W. L., Sarich, P., Hughes, C., & Dessaix, A. (2021). Monitoring changes in community support for policies on obesity prevention. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 45(5), 482–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13153

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free