Policy support at follow-up
REGRESSION
Across all conditions, participants showed stronger support for a ban on alcohol during sporting broadcasts at times when children watch TV (63%) than a ban on alcohol advertising at sports grounds (47%; McNemar’s χ
Effects of counter-advertising condition on policy support and beliefs about alcohol industry marketing at follow-up (n = 1075)oxy_comment_start comment="As noted above, the footnotes have gotten mixed up in your reordering of the tables. Thus, we have fixed these to match how the tables are currently being shown in the proof. However, please note that our requested changes to the proof in the methods section will mean that the order of the tables in text will revert to how it was in our submitted manuscript. After you have made our requested changes, can you please double-check that the footnotes to each table are correctly matching? If possible, it would be great if we could be sent an updated proof to confirm this for ourselves."Notesoxy_comment_end: Boldfaced figures highlight the counter-advertisement that produced the highest (policy support, beliefs opposing alcohol industry marketing) or lowest (beliefs supportive of alcohol industry marketing, overall belief about alcohol companies) percentage among participants. Logistic regression models controlled for days elapsed between surveys, dose of advertising exposure and game number. Where the omnibus test for counter-advertising condition was significant (p < 0.05), pairwise differences were assessed with a Bonferroni correction applied. a Significant difference compared to control ad at p < 0.05; b Significant difference compared to counter-ad exposing alcohol harms at p < 0.05