MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411142690 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325730

What, when, and how food and beverage are advertised on Ghanian television

2025· article· en· W4411142690 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Morgan Boncyk, Krystal K Rampalli, Marian N. Winters, Muskaan K. Makkar, Silver Nanema, Gideon Senyo Amevinya, Amos Laar, Edward A. Frongillo, Christine E. Blake

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of the Vice President for Research, University of South CarolinaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsOverweightAdvertisingFood marketingUnhealthy foodEveningSnackingUnderweightFraming (construction)ObesityAdded sugarMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food marketing has increased volume, precision, and reach to influence viewers' food attitudes, beliefs, and eating behaviors. What and how much people eat has implications for health. While many countries regulate food advertising to protect consumers and encourage healthy eating, Ghana has none. Understanding the content and framing of food and beverage advertisements can inform the development of effective policies and practices that encourage healthier diets. This content analysis examines the foods and beverages advertised, their timing, and marketing techniques on Ghanaian television. From February to May 2020, 486 hours of advertisements were recorded. Advertisements with ≥1 actors were coded for food type, actor characteristics (i.e., body size, gender, age, race), and marketing techniques (i.e., promotional characters, premium offers, goal frames). A total of 607 advertisements with 2,043 actors were analyzed. Two-thirds (66.8%) promoted foods categorized as unhealthy. Sugar-sweetened beverages (22.6%) were most frequent, followed by grains high in sugar and low in fiber (13.2%), recipe additions (13.1%), and supplements (10.2%). Half (52.9%) of advertisements used persuasive marketing strategies. Most actors were classified as underweight (72.1% v. 20.5% normal weight, 7.4% overweight/obese) with a balanced gender distribution (49.1% female). Most advertisements aired during evenings (37.7%) and weekdays (69.5%). Morning advertisements promoted more healthy foods, whereas evening and night advertisements promoted more unhealthy foods. Gain goal frames were most common for healthy foods (p < 0.001), hedonic frames for unhealthy foods (p < 0.001), and normative frames showed no difference (p = 0.54). Underweight actors frequently appeared in unhealthy advertisements (68.3% v. 56.0% normal weight, 59.0% overweight/obese), whereas normal-weight (44.0%) and overweight/obese actors (41.0% v. 31.7% underweight) appeared in healthy advertisements. Persuasive marketing strategies were frequently advertised with unhealthy foods (59.9%) and overweight/obese (54.9%) and male actors (53.6%). This study highlights the need for effective policies to regulate food marketing, promoting healthier diets and realistic body expectations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→