Exposure and Perceptions of Caffeinated Energy Drink Marketing among Youth and Young Adults in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consumption of caffeinated energy drinks (CEDs) has become increasingly prevalent among youth and young adults, which is concerning given the association with adverse health effects and other risky behaviours. Health Canada does not recommend consumption of CEDs for use during sports, with alcohol, as well as by children. Accordingly, beverage companies must comply with regulations surrounding advertising and claims related to CEDs. There are several evidence gaps related to CED marketing: To date, very little research has been conducted on advertising exposure and perceptions, and no research has examined exposure to educational messages that warn about potential health risk of energy drinks. The current study had two primary objectives: 1) to evaluate exposure to energy drink marketing and educational messages that warn about the potential health risks of energy drinks; and 2) to examine perceptions of CED ads in association with sports and alcohol use, as well as target age groups. \n \nMETHODS: An online survey was conducted in 2015 with youth and young adults aged 12-24 years recruited from a national commercial online panel, consisting of two sub-studies. In Study 1, participants (n=2,023) were asked about their exposure to energy drink marketing via ten channels, and to educational messages that warn about the potential health risks of energy drinks. Regression models (negative binomial and logistic) examined correlates of exposure to marketing and educational messages. In Study 2, participants (n=2,010) completed three experiments in which they were randomized to view different CED advertisements for leading brands: 1) sports/party-themed ads, 2) sports-themed ad, and 3) party-themed ad, vs. control ‘product information’ ads for the same brands. For each ad, participants were asked about the perceived target age group, and if the ad promoted use of CEDs during sports and with alcohol. Logistic regression models were fitted to test for differences in outcomes between experimental conditions. Two-way interactions were also tested. \n \nRESULTS: In Study 1, over 80% of respondents reported ever seeing energy drink marketing through at least one channel, most commonly television (58.8%), posters or signs in a convenience or grocery store (48.5%), and online ads (45.7%). Respondents reported a mean of 3.4 marketing channels (SD=2.9) out of ten. Respondents aged 18-19 (vs. 12-14 and 15-17) and 20-24 (vs. 12-14 and 15-17) reported significantly more channels of exposure to marketing. Overall, 32% of respondents reporting ever seeing an educational message about energy drinks. The most frequently reported sources of exposure were at school (16.2%), online (15.0%), and on television (12.6%). Respondents aged 18-19 (vs. 12-14, 15-17 and 20-24) and 20-24 (vs. 15-17) were significantly more likely to report having seen an educational message. In Study 2, the majority of respondents reported that the energy drink ads across all themes targeted people their age. In experiment 1, both sports/party-themed ads were more likely to be perceived as promoting use of CEDs during sports (AOR=13.32; 95% CI 9.90, 17.91, and AOR=9.73; 95% CI 7.38, 12.81, respectively), and with alcohol (AOR=8.55; 95% CI 6.37, 11.48, and AOR=2.81; 95% CI 2.08, 3.78), compared to the control ad. There were also significant interactions between condition and sex (X2= 7.9, p=0.02), and condition and exposure to energy drink marketing channels (X2=124.3, p<0.001) in perceiving the ad as promoting use of CEDs during sports. In addition, there were significant interactions between condition and sex (X2=7.2, p=0.03), and condition and age group (X2=20.2, p=0.003) in perceiving the ad as promoting use of CEDs with alcohol. In experiment 2, the sports-themed ad was more likely to be perceived as promoting use of CEDs during sports (AOR=15.02; 95% CI 11.83, 19.08), but not with alcohol, compared to the control ad. There were also significant interactions between condition and sex (X2=12.8, p<0.001), condition and age group (X2=17.8, p<0.001), and condition and exposure to energy drink marketing channels (X2=13.4, p<0.001) in perceiving the ad as promoting use of CEDs during sports. In experiment 3, the party-themed ad was more likely to be perceived as promoting use of CEDs with alcohol (AOR=13.79; 95% CI 10.69, 17.78), but not during sports, compared to the control ad. There was also a significant interaction between condition and sex (X2=8.0, p=0.005) in perceiving the ad as promoting use of CEDs with alcohol. \n \nCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to energy drink marketing was common among youth and young adults and was significantly more prevalent than exposure to educational messages that warn about the potential health risks of energy drinks. In addition, ads from leading energy drink brands are perceived as targeting young people and encouraging energy drink use during sports and with alcohol, despite Canadian regulations prohibiting these marketing practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".