Trial Review

Please note the ANZCTR will be unattended from Friday 20 December 2024 for the holidays. The Registry will re-open on Tuesday 7 January 2025. Submissions and updates will not be processed during that time.

Registering a new trial?

To achieve prospective registration, we recommend submitting your trial for registration at the same time as ethics submission.

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this information for consumers
Trial registered on ANZCTR


Registration number
ACTRN12618000368235
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
22/02/2018
Date registered
12/03/2018
Date last updated
12/03/2018
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered

Titles & IDs
Public title
Impact of unhealthy food vs. pro-health sponsorship options on young adults' food preferences
Scientific title
Harnessing the power of elite sport sponsorship to promote healthy eating: an experimental study of the impact of unhealthy food vs. pro-health sponsorship models on young adults' food preferences
Secondary ID [1] 293919 0
NHMRC#1114923
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Trial acronym
Linked study record

Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Obesity 306405 0
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health 305495 305495 0 0
Health promotion/education
Diet and Nutrition 305910 305910 0 0
Obesity

Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
The study intervention included four different simulated sport sponsorship scenarios that were shown to study participants via an online survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following four sponsorship scenarios: (A) non-food sponsorship (control); (B) unhealthy food sponsorship; (C) healthier food sponsorship; and (D) obesity prevention campaign sponsorship. Within each sponsorship condition, participants were further randomised to one of three product categories (breakfast cereal, take-away food, non-alcoholic beverage).

The online survey was accessed individually by participants (via a web-link in an email invitation) at a time and location of their convenience. The sponsorship intervention included exposure to: two existing promotional videos for the 2018 Commonwealth Games sourced online via YouTube (1 x 30 seconds and 1 x 15 seconds in length) that were professionally edited to include a new end-frame; and two mock online news pages about the Games. Sponsor content in the promotional videos and news pages was edited to reflect each condition. Each intervention component appeared on a separate screen within the online survey.

Prior to being exposed to the intervention, participants were instructed to spend a few minutes viewing the advertisements and reading each news page fully as they would be asked some questions about them afterwards. During the intervention presentation stage of the online survey, participants were unable to click through to the next screen until either the promotional video had played in full or a set amount of time had elapsed from when each news page had appeared on screen (20 seconds for news page 1 and 15 seconds for news page 2). The length of time participants spent on each news page screen was recorded. The average duration of the entire intervention was 1 minute and 45 seconds.
Intervention code [1] 300367 0
Behaviour
Intervention code [2] 300368 0
Lifestyle
Intervention code [3] 300369 0
Prevention
Comparator / control treatment
The control group were shown sponsorship stimuli (i.e. two existing promotional videos for the 2018 Commonwealth Games sourced from YouTube and two mock online news pages about the Games developed specifically for this study) featuring sponsor content for a non-food brand. (e.g. bank, airline, telecommunications company).
Control group
Active

Outcomes
Primary outcome [1] 304843 0
Proportion of participants indicating a preference for the unhealthy food sponsor branded product.

Participants were shown images of two unhealthy and two healthier products (with their corresponding brand logos), including one product from the respective food sponsors for their assigned product category, and asked to choose which one they would most prefer to buy. This measure was designed specifically for this study.
Timepoint [1] 304843 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Primary outcome [2] 304844 0
Proportion of participants indicating a preference for the healthier food sponsor branded product.

Participants were shown images of two unhealthy and two healthier products (with their corresponding brand logos), including one product from the respective food sponsors for their assigned product category, and asked to choose which one they would most prefer to buy. This measure was designed specifically for this study.
Timepoint [2] 304844 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [1] 343341 0
Proportion of participants aware of the unhealthy food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using open-ended questions (designed specifically for this study) whereby participants were prompted to list up to three brands that came to mind when they thought about their assigned product category (breakfast cereals, take-away foods or non-alcoholic drinks).
Timepoint [1] 343341 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [2] 343343 0
Proportion of participants aware of the healthier food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using open-ended questions (designed specifically for this study) whereby participants were prompted to list up to three brands that came to mind when they thought about their assigned product category (breakfast cereals, take-away foods or non-alcoholic drinks).
Timepoint [2] 343343 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [3] 343683 0
Proportion of participants aware of the obesity prevention campaign sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using an open-ended question (designed specifically for this study) whereby participants were prompted to list up to three campaigns that came to mind when they thought about public health campaigns aimed at encouraging Australian adults to eat a healthier diet or be more active.
Timepoint [3] 343683 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [4] 343684 0
Participants' mean attitude rating of the unhealthy food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using three 7-point semantic differential scales anchored by negative/positive, unfavourable/favourable and bad/good.. These validated items were sourced from Muehling and Laczniak (1988).

Reference: Muehling DD, Laczniak RN. (1988). Advertising's immediate and delayed influence on brand attitudes: considerations across message-involvement levels. J Advert, 17(4): 23-34.
Timepoint [4] 343684 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx.. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [5] 343688 0
Participants' mean attitude rating of the healthier food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using three 7-point semantic differential scales anchored by negative/positive, unfavourable/favourable and bad/good.. These validated items were sourced from Muehling and Laczniak (1988).

Reference: Muehling DD, Laczniak RN. (1988). Advertising's immediate and delayed influence on brand attitudes: considerations across message-involvement levels. J Advert, 17(4): 23-34.
Timepoint [5] 343688 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [6] 343691 0
Participants' perceptions of the fit between the event and the unhealthy food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using a 5-item scale developed by Speed and Thompson (2000).

Reference: Speed R, Thompson P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. J Acad Market Sci, 28(2): 226-38.
Timepoint [6] 343691 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [7] 343694 0
Participants' perceptions of the fit between the event and the healthier food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using a 5-item scale developed by Speed and Thompson (2000).

Reference: Speed R, Thompson P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. J Acad Market Sci, 28(2): 226-38.
Timepoint [7] 343694 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [8] 343697 0
Participants' perceptions of the fit between the event and the obesity prevention campaign sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

This composite outcome was measured using a 5-item scale developed by Speed and Thompson (2000).

Reference: Speed R, Thompson P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. J Acad Market Sci, 28(2): 226-38.
Timepoint [8] 343697 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [9] 343698 0
Similarity between participants' image-based ratings of the event and the unhealthy food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

Participants were asked to rate how well a set of 10 adjectives described the event (e.g.. exciting, active, healthy, elite) and the unhealthy food sponsor brand for their assigned product category, using a 7-point scale. These questions were adapted from Gwinner and Eaton (1999). This composite outcome was then calculated by summing (then reverse coding) the absolute differences between participants' ratings of the event and the unhealthy food sponsor brand (as per Gwinner and Eaton (1999)).

Reference: Gwinner KP, Eaton J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: the role of image transfer. J Advert, 28(4): 47-57.
Timepoint [9] 343698 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.
Secondary outcome [10] 343706 0
Similarity between participants' image-based ratings of the event and the healthier food sponsor brand for their assigned product category.

Participants were asked to rate how well a set of 10 adjectives described the event (e.g.. exciting, active, healthy, elite) and the healthier food sponsor brand for their assigned product category, using a 7-point scale. These questions were adapted from Gwinner and Eaton (1999). This composite outcome was then calculated by summing (then reverse coding) the absolute differences between participants' ratings of the event and the healthier food sponsor brand (as per Gwinner and Eaton (1999)).

Reference: Gwinner KP, Eaton J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: the role of image transfer. J Advert, 28(4): 47-57.
Timepoint [10] 343706 0
Immediately following exposure to sponsorship stimuli and completion of a short (approx. 1 minute) distractor task.

Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
- Young adults aged 18-24 years
- Reported watching, reading or listening to any media coverage of sport
Minimum age
18 Years
Maximum age
24 Years
Sex
Both males and females
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Key exclusion criteria
None

Study design
Purpose of the study
Prevention
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Allocation is concealed. At the commencement of the online survey, following confirmation of participants' study eligibility, PHP programming was used to allocate participants to a sponsorship condition and product category.
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Participants will be allocated to one of four sponsorship conditions and then one of three product categories using a sex-stratified randomisation table created via PHP programming.
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s


Intervention assignment
Parallel
Other design features
Phase
Not Applicable
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Statistical methods / analysis

Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
16/11/2016
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
13/12/2016
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Actual
13/12/2016
Sample size
Target
1104
Accrual to date
Final
1132
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
ACT,NSW,NT,QLD,SA,TAS,WA,VIC

Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1] 298548 0
Government body
Name [1] 298548 0
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
Country [1] 298548 0
Australia
Primary sponsor type
Individual
Name
Helen Dixon
Address
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer
Cancer Council Victoria
615 St Kilda Road
Melbourne VIC 3004
Country
Australia
Secondary sponsor category [1] 297900 0
None
Name [1] 297900 0
Address [1] 297900 0
Country [1] 297900 0

Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Ethics committee name [1] 299517 0
Cancer Council Victoria's Institutional Research Review Committee
Ethics committee address [1] 299517 0
Ethics committee country [1] 299517 0
Australia
Date submitted for ethics approval [1] 299517 0
22/07/2016
Approval date [1] 299517 0
12/08/2016
Ethics approval number [1] 299517 0
IER 1606

Summary
Brief summary
Trial website
Trial related presentations / publications
Public notes

Contacts
Principal investigator
Name 80690 0
Dr Helen Dixon
Address 80690 0
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer
Cancer Council Victoria
615 St Kilda Road
Melbourne VIC 3004
Country 80690 0
Australia
Phone 80690 0
+61 3 9514 6480
Fax 80690 0
Email 80690 0
Helen.Dixon@cancervic.org.au
Contact person for public queries
Name 80691 0
Helen Dixon
Address 80691 0
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer
Cancer Council Victoria
615 St Kilda Road
Melbourne VIC 3004
Country 80691 0
Australia
Phone 80691 0
+61 3 9514 6480
Fax 80691 0
Email 80691 0
Helen.Dixon@cancervic.org.au
Contact person for scientific queries
Name 80692 0
Helen Dixon
Address 80692 0
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer
Cancer Council Victoria
615 St Kilda Road
Melbourne VIC 3004
Country 80692 0
Australia
Phone 80692 0
+61 3 9514 6480
Fax 80692 0
Email 80692 0
Helen.Dixon@cancervic.org.au

No information has been provided regarding IPD availability


What supporting documents are/will be available?

No Supporting Document Provided



Results publications and other study-related documents

Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.

Documents added automatically
SourceTitleYear of PublicationDOI
EmbaseThe impact of unhealthy food sponsorship vs. pro-health sponsorship models on young adults' food preferences: a randomised controlled trial.2018https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6298-4
N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.