Table 3.

Associations between exposure to advertisements for specific SBC brands and children’s intake of those SBC brands.^a

Independent variable	Outcome: Any recent SBC intake (yes vs no)b
	Model 1 Unadjusted RR (95 % CI)	Model 2 Adjusted for covariates RR (95 % CI)	Model 3 Adjusted for covariates and baseline SBC intake RR (95 % CI)
SBC advertisement exposure, brand-specific
No exposure	1.0 (ref)	1.0 (ref)	1.0 (ref)
Recent (i.e., past 7-day) exposure only	1.38 (1.07, 1.77)*	1.32 (1.03, 1.70)*	1.34 (1.04, 1.72)*
Past exposure onlyc	1.43 (1.23, 1.67)**	1.31 (1.12, 1.53)**	1.23 (1.06, 1.42)*
Recent (i.e., past 7-day) and past exposure	1.67 (1.39, 2.01)**	1.52 (1.26, 1.83)**	1.37 (1.15, 1.63)**
Usual intake of SBC brand at baseline	–	–	4.32 (3.92, 4.77)**

Notes: Boldface indicates statistical significance

^*p<0.05

^**p<0.001.

^aAmong 624 children enrolled in a prospective study.

^bSBC intake measured over the past 7 days. Each Poisson model included crossed random effects for child and SBC brand to account for the repeated measures and effects nested within brand, respectively. Each model was adjusted for time (i.e., follow-up assessment, continuous) and included both advertising exposures listed in the table. Model 2 is further adjusted for child age, sex, race/ethnicity, and WIC recipient status; parent education; children’s other screen time (hours per week) at baseline and TV time (hours per week) at each study survey. Model 3 includes those same covariates plus usual intake of each advertised SBC brand at baseline.

^cPast advertisement exposure based on any exposure at a previous follow-up assessment including baseline.

RR, relative risk; SBC, sweetened, high-sugar breakfast cereal; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.