Media-saturated digital environments seek to influence social media users’ behaviour, including through marketing. The World Health Organization has identified food marketing, including advertising for unhealthy items, as detrimental to health, and in many countries, regulation restricts such marketing and advertising to younger children. Yet regulation rarely addresses adolescents and few studies have examined their responses to social media advertising. In two studies, we examined adolescents’ attention, memory and social responses to advertising posts, including interactions between product types and source of posts. We hypothesized adolescents would respond more positively to unhealthy food advertising compared to healthy food or non-food advertising, and more positively to ads shared by peers or celebrities than to ads shared by a brand. Outcomes measured were (1a) social responses (likelihood to ‘share’, attitude to peer); (1b) brand memory (recall, recognition) and (2) attention (eye-tracking fixation duration and count). Participants were 151 adolescent social media users (Study 1: n = 72; 13–14 years; M = 13.56 years, SD = 0.5; Study 2: n = 79, 13–17 years, M = 15.37 years, SD = 1.351). They viewed 36 fictitious Facebook profile feeds created to show age-typical content. In a 3 × 3 factorial design, each contained an advertising post that varied by content (healthy/unhealthy/non-food) and source (peer/celebrity/company). Generalised linear mixed models showed that advertisements for unhealthy food evoked significantly more positive responses, compared to non-food and healthy food, on 5 of 6 measures: adolescents were more likely to wish to ‘share’ unhealthy posts; rated peers more positively when they had unhealthy posts in their feeds; recalled and recognised a greater number of unhealthy food brands; and viewed unhealthy advertising posts for longer. Interactions with sources (peers, celebrities and companies) were more complex but also favoured unhealthy food advertising. Implications are that regulation of unhealthy food advertising should address adolescents and digital media.

BackgroundAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood disorder with international prevalence estimates of 5 % in childhood, yet significant evidence exists that far fewer children receive ADHD services. In many countries, ADHD is assessed and diagnosed in specialist mental health or neuro-developmental paediatric clinics, to which referral by General (Family) Practitioners (GPs) is required. In such ‘gatekeeper’ settings, where GPs act as a filter to diagnosis and treatment, GPs may either not recognise potential ADHD cases, or may be reluctant to refer. This study systematically reviews the literature regarding GPs’ views of ADHD in such settings.MethodsA search of nine major databases was conducted, with wide search parameters; 3776 records were initially retrieved. Studies were included if they were from settings where GPs are typically gatekeepers to ADHD services; if they addressed GPs’ ADHD attitudes and knowledge; if methods were clearly described; and if results for GPs were reported separately from those of other health professionals.ResultsFew studies specifically addressed GP attitudes to ADHD. Only 11 papers (10 studies), spanning 2000–2010, met inclusion criteria, predominantly from the UK, Europe and Australia. As studies varied methodologically, findings are reported as a thematic narrative, under the following themes: Recognition rate; ADHD controversy (medicalisation, stigma, labelling); Causes of ADHD; GPs and ADHD diagnosis; GPs and ADHD treatment; GP ADHD training and sources of information; and Age, sex differences in knowledge and attitudes.ConclusionsAcross times and settings, GPs practising in first-contact gatekeeper settings had mixed and often unhelpful attitudes regarding the validity of ADHD as a construct, the role of medication and how parenting contributed to presentation. A paucity of training was identified, alongside a reluctance of GPs to become involved in shared care practice. If access to services is to be improved for possible ADHD cases, there needs to be a focused and collaborative approach to training.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0516-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Unhealthy marketing has been unequivocally linked to children's food preferences, requests, purchases and eating behaviors and hence to childhood obesity. Regulating children's exposure to such marketing has been identified as a key challenge to which States must rise. Regulation mandates the need for monitoring and hence for credible data that are comparable between countries, regions and across time. However, there are major challenges presented by the complexity of the digital marketing ecosystem including the personalized targeting with persuasive, exploitative advertising to which children are subject. This narrative review identifies challenges faced by researchers in the digital ecosystem; reviews recent papers attempting to address these and specifies benefits and limitations; and introduces a set of WHO protocols with templates and guidance for studies of food marketing to children.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

KeywordsAttention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, transition, child and adolescent mental health services, adult mental health services, CAMHS, AMHS ADHD transitions case note review Ireland Abstract AimIn a context of international concern about early adult mental health service provision, this study identifies characteristics and service outcomes of young people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) reaching the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) transition boundary in Ireland. MethodsThe iTRACK study invited all 60 CAMHS teams in Ireland to participate; 8 teams retrospectively identified clinical case files for 62 eligible young people reaching the CAMHS transition boundary in all four Health Service Executive Regions. A secondary case note analysis identified characteristics, co-morbidities, referral and service outcomes for iTRACK cases with ADHD (n = 20). ResultsTwo-thirds of young people with ADHD were on psychotropic medication and half had mental health co-morbidities, yet none was directly transferred to public adult mental health services (AMHS) at the transition boundary. Nearly half were retained in CAMHS, for an average of over a year; most either disengaged from services (40%) and/or actively refused transfer to AMHS (35%) at or after the transition boundary. There was a perception by CAMHS clinicians that adult services did not accept ADHD cases or lacked relevant service/expertise. ConclusionsDespite high rates of medication use and comorbid mental health difficulties, there appears to be a complete absence of referral to publically available adult mental health services for ADHD youth transitioning from CAMHS in Ireland. More understanding of obstacles and optimum service configuration is essential to ensure that care is both available and accessible to young people with ADHD.

Background: How much unhealthy marketing do children see on digital devices? Marketing of unhealthy food and beverages has long been identified as a factor in children’s preferences, purchase requests and consumption. Rising global obesity mandates States to craft environments that protect children and young people’s health, as recommended by the World Health Organization, among others. However, assessing the impact of marketing restrictions is particularly challenging: the complexity of digital advertising markets means that measurement challenges are profound. In 2019, the UK Department of Health published an Impact Assessment that applied a novel method aiming to calculate costs and benefits of restricting unhealthy food and beverage advertising on digital devices (planned for implementation by 2022). It estimated UK digital unhealthy marketing to children at 0.73 billion advertising impressions annually, compared to television impacts of 3.6 billion. Aim and Method: We assessed this conclusion by reviewing the UK Department of Health/Kantar Consulting’s Online Baseline Methodology (the “Government Model”). We examined the model’s underlying premise and specified the seven analytic steps undertaken. For each step, we reviewed industry and academic evidence to test its assumptions and the validity of data applied. Results: We found that, in each step, the Government Model’s assumptions, and the data sources selected, result in underestimates of the scale of digital advertising of unhealthy foods—at least tenfold, if not substantially more. The model’s underlying premise is also problematic, as digital advertising spend data relate poorly to digital advertising exposure, leading to further underestimation of market scale. Conclusion: We conclude that the Government Model very substantially underestimates the impact of digital unhealthy food advertising restrictions on health. This analysis has relevance for global policy and for the impact of regulation on children’s health and well-being.