It has come to the authors’ attention that a minority of participants were assigned an incorrect Extended International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) grade for their Body Mass Index (BMI). The misclassification concerns a minority of cases (approximately 2% of the sample) and is limited to only a subset of female participants aged 11–17 years old.
The findings, conclusions, and interpretations of the paper are unchanged, but corrections to the text and tables of the above published article are presented below:
Original text (page 2637, Abstract; Results)
For example, those reporting medium marketing awareness were 1·5 times more likely to report higher weekly consumption of cakes/biscuits compared with those reporting low awareness (AOR = 1·51, P = 0·012).
Correction
For example, those reporting medium marketing awareness were 1·5 times more likely to report higher weekly consumption of cakes/biscuits compared with those reporting low awareness (AOR = 1·49, P = 0·014).
Original text (page 2638, Design)
A survey weight (based on age, gender, ethnicity, region and social grade) enabled descriptive data to be representative of the UK population.
Correction
A survey weight (based on age, gender, ethnicity, region, and area level of deprivation) enabled descriptive data to be representative of the UK population.
Original text (page 2638, Measures)
Participants self-reported their height (options presented in both feet and inches or centimetres) and weight (options presented in stones and pounds, kilograms or pounds only).
Correction
Participants self-reported their height (options presented in both feet and inches or centimetres) and weight (options presented in stones and pounds, kilograms or pounds only). This information was reported by participants aged 16-19 years and parent(s)/guardian(s) for 11-15 year olds.
Original text (page 2642, Sample Characteristics)
After excluding participants with missing data for height or weight (n 816, weighted), 61·5 % were categorised as healthy weight, 17·3 % underweight, 16·2 % overweight and 5·0 % obese.
Correction
After excluding participants with missing data for height or weight (n 816, weighted), 61.9% were categorised as healthy weight, 18.0% underweight, 15.3% overweight and 4.8% obese.
Original text (page 2640, Table 2)
Table 2 Binary logistic regressions exploring the association between high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) marketing awareness and consumption of group 1 foods
AOR, adjusted OR; IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation; NS, not significant (P > 0.05).
Dependant variable for all models = high consumption (≥2 portions per week) v. low (≤1 portion); Hosmer–Lemeshow test for all models, P > 0·05; χ 2 test of coefficients for all models, P < 0·001.
* HFSS products.
† Non-HFSS products.
‡ HFSS alternatives. Cases with missing data on one or more variables excluded model-by-model, sugary drinks (n 895), flavoured yoghurts (n 911), sweets/chocolate (n 892), cake/biscuits (n 898), fruit (n 900), vegetables (n 899), diet/sugar-free drinks (n 927), crisps (n 892) and desserts (n 906).
Correction
Table 2 Binary logistic regressions exploring the association between high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) marketing awareness and consumption of group 1 foods
AOR, adjusted OR; IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Dependant variable for all models = high consumption (≥2 portions per week) v. low (≤1 portion); Hosmer–Lemeshow test for all models, P > 0·05; χ 2 test of coefficients for all models, P < 0·001.
* HFSS products.
† Non-HFSS products.
‡ HFSS alternatives. Cases with missing data on one or more variables excluded model-by-model sugary drinks (n 894), flavoured yoghurts (n 910), sweets/chocolate (n 891), cake/biscuits (n 897), fruit (n 899), vegetables (n 898), diet/sugar-free drinks (n 926), crisps (n 891) and desserts (n 905).
Original text (page 2641, Table 3)
Table 3 Binary logistic regressions exploring the association between high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) marketing awareness and consumption of group 2 foods
AOR, adjusted OR; IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation; NS, not significant (P > 0.05).
Dependant variable for all models = high consumption (≥1 portion per week) v. low (0 portion per week); Hosmer–Lemeshow test for all models, P > 0·05; χ2 test of coefficients for all models, P < 0·005.
* HFSS products. Cases with missing data on one or more variables excluded model-by-model, takeaways (n 899), energy drinks (n 914), ready meals (n 901), fried potatoes/chips (n 897), milk drinks (n 927) and sugar-sweetened cereals (n 898).
Correction
Table 3 Binary logistic regressions exploring the association between high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) marketing awareness and consumption of group 2 foods
AOR, adjusted OR; IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Dependant variable for all models = high consumption (≥1 portion per week) v. low (≤0 portion per week); Hosmer–Lemeshow test for all models, P > 0·05; χ2 test of coefficients for all models, P < 0·001.
* HFSS products. Cases with missing data on one or more variables excluded model-by-model takeaways (n 898), energy drinks (n 913), ready meals (n 900), fried potatoes (n 896), milk drinks (n 926) and sugar-sweetened cereals (n 897).
Original text (page 2642, Marketing awareness and weekly consumption of foods high in fat, salt or sugar)
For example, those reporting medium marketing awareness were 1·51 times (95 % CI 1·10, 2·08) more likely to report higher weekly consumption of cakes/biscuits v. low awareness, whereas those reporting high awareness were 1·77 times more likely (95 % CI 1·33, 2·36) v. low and medium awareness combined
Correction
For example, those reporting medium marketing awareness were 1·49 times (95 % CI 1·08, 2·06) more likely to report higher weekly consumption of cakes/biscuits v. low awareness, whereas those reporting high awareness were 1·78 times more likely (95 % CI 1·33, 2·37) v. low and medium awareness combined
Original text (page 2642, Marketing awareness and weekly consumption of foods high in fat, salt or sugar)
Consistent with the first group, the likelihood of higher weekly consumption increased relative to marketing awareness. For example, those reporting medium marketing awareness were 1·46 times (95 % CI: 1·02, 2·08) more likely to report higher weekly consumption of takeaways v. low awareness, while those reporting high awareness were 2·16 times (95 % CI 1·62, 2·86) more likely v. low and medium combined
Correction
Consistent with the first group, the likelihood of higher weekly consumption increased relative to marketing awareness. For example, those reporting medium marketing awareness were 1·45 times (95 % CI: 1·02, 2·07) more likely to report higher weekly consumption of takeaways v. low awareness, while those reporting high awareness were 2·16 times (95 % CI 1·62, 2·87) more likely v. low and medium combined
Original text (page 2643, Marketing awareness and weekly consumption of healthy foods)
There was an association between awareness of marketing for HFSS foods and higher weekly consumption of diet/sugar-free drinks (HFSS alternative) – with those reporting high marketing awareness being 1·7 times (95 % CI 1·28, –2·26) more likely to report high weekly consumption of diet/sugar-free drinks than those reporting medium or low awareness.
Correction
There was an association between awareness of marketing for HFSS foods and higher weekly consumption of diet/sugar-free drinks (HFSS alternative) – with those reporting high marketing awareness being 1·68 times (95 % CI 1·27, –2·23) more likely to report high weekly consumption of diet/sugar-free drinks than those reporting medium or low awareness.
Open access
