Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:26:30.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Intentions to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption: the importance of perceived susceptibility to health risks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

Joanne Dono*
Affiliation:
Health Policy Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA5000, Australia School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Kerry A Ettridge
Affiliation:
Health Policy Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA5000, Australia School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Melanie Wakefield
Affiliation:
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Simone Pettigrew
Affiliation:
Food Policy, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia
John Coveney
Affiliation:
College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
David Roder
Affiliation:
Cancer Epidemiology and Population Health, University of South Australia, Australia
Sarah Durkin
Affiliation:
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Gary Wittert
Affiliation:
Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men’s Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia Centre for Nutrition and GI Diseases, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia
Jane Martin
Affiliation:
Obesity Policy Coalition and Alcohol and Obesity Policy, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
Caroline L Miller
Affiliation:
Health Policy Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA5000, Australia School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

There are numerous health effects associated with excess sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. Interventions aimed at reducing population-level consumption require understanding of the relevant barriers and facilitators. This study aimed to identify the variables with the strongest relationship with intentions to reduce SSB consumption from a suite of variables derived from the literature.

Design:

Random-digit dialling of landline and mobile phones was used to survey adults using computer-assisted telephone interviews. The outcome variable was ‘likelihood of reducing SSB consumption in next 6 months’, and the predictor variables were demographics, SSB attitudes and behaviour, health risk perceptions and social/environmental exposure.

Setting:

Australia.

Participants:

A subsample of 1630 regular SSB consumers from a nationally representative sample of 3430 Australian adults (38 % female, 51 % aged 18–45 years, 56 % overweight or obese).

Results:

Respondents indicated that they were ‘not at all’ (30·1 %), ‘somewhat’ (43·9 %) and ‘very likely’ (25·3 %) to reduce SSB consumption. Multivariate nominal logistic regressions showed that perceiving future health to be ‘very much’ at risk was the strongest predictor of intention to reduce SSB consumption (OR = 8·1, 95 % CI 1·8, 37·0, P < 0·01). Other significant predictors (P < 0·01) included self-perceptions about too much consumption, habitual consumption, difficulty reducing consumption and likelihood of benefitting from reduced consumption.

Conclusions:

Health risk perceptions had the strongest relationship with intentions to reduce consumption. Age and consumption perceptions were also predictors in the multivariate models, whereas social/environmental exposure variables were not. Interventions may seek to incorporate strategies to denormalise consumption practices and increase knowledge about perceived susceptibility to health risks.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

The relationship between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and chronic disease is well established(Reference Malik, Pan and Willett1Reference Hu and Malik10), yet consumption is high in many jurisdictions(Reference Popkin and Hawkes11). Reducing population-level SSB consumption is necessary to improve health(12). Barriers to behaviour change include widespread availability and promotion(Reference Welsh, Lundeen and Stein13) and lack of clear and tangible advice about how much can be consumed(Reference Miller, Braunack-Mayer and Wakefiled14).

The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend ‘limiting’ food and beverages considered unhealthy without quantifying a limit(15). Moreover, consumers find nutrition information panels, which include sugar, difficult to interpret(Reference Rothman, Housam and Weiss16). Health Star Ratings – Australia and New Zealand’s interpretive front-of-pack labelling scheme – is intended to facilitate consumer understanding; however, there has been low uptake of this voluntary system(Reference Brownbill, Braunack-Mayer and Miller17). Other countries have overcome such limitations with mandatory warning labels or via policies such as taxes on SSBs(Reference Backholer, Blake and Vandevijvere18,19) . However, many countries, including Australia, are yet to implement regulatory change despite the need for action to address high rates of overweight and obesity(20) and the known contributing factor of high SSB consumption.

To date, most population studies of adult SSB consumers have examined only demographic characteristics as correlates of current consumption, with higher consumption rates among males, younger adults and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations(21Reference Miller, Ettridge and Wakefield31). While these studies are informative, for behaviour change to occur, it is useful to identify modifiable predictors of SSB consumption that can be targeted through public health interventions. Behavioural intention is an important antecedent to behaviour change, with the intention–behaviour pathway described in multiple theories, including the Theory of Reasoned Action(Reference Fishbein and Ajzen32), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)(Reference Ajzen33) and the Integrated Model of Behavioural Prediction (IM)(Reference Fishbein34). While research shows that intentions may be influenced by other cognitive influences and situational cues resulting in an intention–behaviour gap, intentions have been associated with corresponding behaviour in many contexts(Reference Papies35,Reference Sheeran and Webb36) .

Studies of adolescents/young people using the TPB have shown that attitudes, subjective norms and/or perceived behavioural control variables were associated with intentions to reduce consumption, which in turn were associated with lower rates of actual consumption(Reference Riebl, MacDougal and Hill37Reference Sharma, Catalano and Nahar41). These studies also showed that more distal variables such as parental discouragement, low availability in the home and opportunity to purchase water instead of SSBs when needed were also associated with change in SSB consumption(Reference Riebl, MacDougal and Hill37,Reference Ezendam, Evans and Stigler39Reference Sharma, Catalano and Nahar41) . Non-TPB variables (takeaway food consumption, availability of soda in home, depression diagnosis and heart disease) were also related to higher SSB consumption in an adult population, with type 2 diabetes related to lower consumption(Reference Miller, Ettridge and Wakefield31). Using the IM, one study found that nutritional knowledge (the only non-demographic predictor) predicted consumption(Reference Gase, Robles and Barragan42). Another study among overweight and obese adults found that perceived behavioural control, environment and intentions had the largest influence on SSB consumption(Reference Collado-Rivera, Branscum and Larson43). These theories offer a useful framework to guide an understanding of key influences on behaviour, but the literature suggests that other modifiable factors may be important when targeting health behaviour change.

One such factor is risk perception, acknowledged as a key determinant of behaviour by other well-known behavioural theories, e.g., Health Belief Model (HBM)(Reference Rosenstock44Reference Ferrer, Klein and Persoskie46). Increasing awareness of health risks is a key strategy used in emerging policy approaches to reduce SSB consumption, with intervention studies showing a reduction in SSB selections following exposure to mass media campaigns(Reference Morley, Niven and Dixon47Reference Boles, Adams and Gredler49) and on-package warning labels(Reference Grummon and Hall50). Cross-sectional population surveys have also established associations between current consumption and knowledge of health risks(Reference Rampersaud, Kim and Gao51Reference Park, Lundeen and Pan54) or the healthiness of various beverage types(Reference Thomson, Worsley and Wang55Reference Munsell, Harris and Sarda58). However, SSB-related health risk perceptions have not been assessed in population studies in relation to intention to change behaviour. Intention may be overlooked as an intermediary variable in some theories that incorporate risk perceptions as a direct determinant of behaviour (e.g. HBM), and risk perception may be excluded from studies of SSB consumption among younger participants because the health risks are considered too distal to be a predictor(Reference Zhang, Wong and Zhang59). Establishing the extent to which risk perception relates to intentions to reduce SSB consumption would add to the evidence of risk perception as a potentially modifiable factor for incorporation into SSB interventions.

In the absence of large longitudinal studies examining the relationship between predictors and behaviour change, examining the intention to change can offer insights into the modifiable factors to increase intentions and potentially assist in reducing the consumption of SSBs. We compiled a list of predictor variables from the literature to test which were more strongly associated with intentions to reduce SSB consumption in a subsample of regular SSB consumers drawn from a nationally representative population survey. Specifically, we tested four sets of variables: (1) demographics, (2) SSB attitudes and behaviour, (3) health risk perceptions and (4) social and environmental exposure.

Methods

A nationally representative sample of Australian adults (≥18 years; n 3430; participant rate = 44 %) was surveyed in 2017 using a computer-assisted telephone interview lasting approximately 20 min. Participants were sourced through random-digit dialling of landline and mobile phones (35:65 split) in accordance with telecommunication use in Australia(60). Full methodological details of the survey are reported elsewhere(Reference Miller, Dono and Wakefield61). This study reports on a subsample of 1165 participants who met the following criteria: (1) regularly (at least weekly) consumed either soda, fruit drinks, sports drinks or energy drinks and (2) consumed at least one SSB in the past week.

The self-report questionnaire (see Supplementary Material) included intention to reduce consumption; demographic and health characteristics (i.e. age, gender, area-level socioeconomic disadvantage (postcode matched to the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage based on 2011 Census data(62)), BMI, ever received a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, depression or lung condition); SSB consumption (i.e. past week and regular SSB consumption, perception of whether amount of SSB consumed is appropriate, habitual consumption and difficulty in reducing consumption); health risk perceptions (i.e. perception of BMI, likelihood of benefitting from reduced consumption and current and future health risks associated with SSB consumption); and social and environmental exposure (i.e. takeaway food consumption, availability of SSBs at home and at others’ homes, perceptions of others’ SSB consumption and perceived pressure to consume SSBs).

The outcome variable, ‘intention to reduce SSB consumption in the next 6 months’, was derived from responses to two questions: extent they would like to reduce SSB consumption, and considering drinking less sugary drinks in the next 6 months as described in Table 1. Four sets of predictor variables – (1) demographics, (2) SSB consumption, (3) health risk perceptions and (4) social and environmental exposure – were tested against the outcome variable using nominal logistic regressions. ‘Somewhat likely’ was used as the reference category (i.e. ‘very’ v ‘somewhat’ likely and ‘not at all’ v ‘somewhat likely’ (order reversed to ‘somewhat’ v ‘not at all’ likely to facilitate interpretation of categories relative to ‘somewhat likely’)). Each predictor was tested independently of other variables (unadjusted) and in combination with other variables in the same grouping while controlling for demographic characteristics (adjusted). Statistically significant associations were identified using a P-value <0·05.

Table 1 Coding of outcome variables from responses to questions about intentions to reduce sugary drink consumption

Results

Demographic characteristics of the participants who were regular SSB consumers are reported in Table 2. Age was evenly distributed, but there were more males than females, and fewer participants in the most socioeconomic disadvantaged deciles than the mid- and least disadvantaged deciles. About one-fifth of participants had ever received a diagnosis of arthritis/gout, depression or a lung condition, but very few had type 2 diabetes or heart disease. These variables were controlled for in the adjusted logistic regression analyses. Regarding the likelihood of reducing SSB consumption in the next 6 months, 30·1 % indicated it was ‘not at all’ likely, 43·9 % indicated it was ‘somewhat’ likely and 25·2 % indicated it was ‘very’ likely. As shown in Table 2, the variables with the strongest relationship with the likelihood of reducing consumption in bivariate analyses were perceptions about benefitting from reduced consumption, future health risks and current consumption (Cramer’s V > 0·4).

Table 2 Sample characteristics by the likelihood of reducing sugary drink consumption in the next 6 months

Note. *P < 0·05; **P < 0·01; ***P < 0·001.

Cramer’s V is a measure of effect size for nominal variables that can range between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1 indicating a stronger association.

The nominal logistic regression results are reported in Table 3. The most consistent predictors of intending to reduce consumption (across both unadjusted and adjusted results) were variables relating to the perceptions of SSB consumption and health risks. Specifically, greater intentions to reduce consumption were more likely among those who perceived themselves as consuming too much; that their consumption was habitual; that it would be fairly difficult to reduce consumption; that they would likely benefit from reduced consumption; and that their future health was very much at risk. Furthermore, those who perceived that their future health was very much at risk were 8·07 (95 % CI 1·76, 36·95) times more likely to indicate ‘somewhat’ compared to ‘not at all’ likely, and 4·06 (95 % CI 1·84, 8·95) times more likely to indicate ‘very’ compared to ‘somewhat’ likely to reduce consumption.

Table 3 Nominal logistical regression analyses

Ref. = reference category.

Note. Variables included in the analysis but results not reported as they were not statistically significant in any of the models: gender; socioeconomic disadvantage; ever had type 2 diabetes; sport drink consumption; availability of juice in the home; proportion of friends consuming sugary drinks; pressure to consume sugary drinks.

*P < 0·05; **P < 0·01; ***P < 0·001.

Controlling for demographic and health characteristics: age, gender, socioeconomic disadvantage, BMI, ever have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, arthritis or gout, depression or lung condition.

There were some additional statistically significant associations for predicting the likelihood of reducing consumption, but there was a different set of predictors for indicating moderate v high likelihood of change. Based on adjusted ORs, moderate likelihood of change (i.e. ‘somewhat’ rather than ‘not at all’) was more common among younger participants, those classified as obese, those consuming 3–6 SSBs in the past week, those consuming soft drinks or fruit juice weekly and those perceiving their future health to be at risk. Conversely, a high likelihood of change (i.e. ‘very’ rather than ‘somewhat’) was more common among those without a lung condition diagnosis, classified as obese, perceiving self as overweight and perceiving current health to be at risk. Social and environmental exposure variables had significant bivariate associations with moderate likelihood of change, whereby increased exposure reduced intentions. However, these associations were non-significant in the multivariate analysis.

Discussion

An intention to drink lesser SSBs was more likely among those who perceived themselves as consuming too much and to be susceptible to health consequences of overconsumption than those who did not hold these views. While it is unknown whether these intentions would translate into behaviour change, these results suggest that people who consider themselves to benefit from reducing consumption may be most responsive to interventions aimed at encouraging people to consider their personal risk. Furthermore, interventions that successfully highlight adverse consequences of consuming SSBs may be particularly influential in changing consumption intentions among regular SSB consumers. The results also indicate the importance of educating those at risk (high consumers) who do not view their consumption as problematic. High consumers with low intention to change may benefit from interventions/campaigns that communicate the health risks of consumption, which may lead to the consideration of behaviour change.

These findings are consistent with experimental and field studies showing that exposure to SSB-related health information corresponds with increased perceptions of personal health risks and reduced intentions to select an SSB from a range of drink options(Reference Morley, Niven and Dixon47Reference Grummon and Hall50). Similarly, risk perceptions have been linked to intentions and behaviour in other domains, although the direct effects of risk appraisals on behaviour are generally small(Reference Brewer, Chapman and Gibbons63,Reference Sheeran, Harris and Epton64) . Also noteworthy is that the indirect route of risk perceptions via intentions may have limited impact in real-world settings due to barriers to implementation resulting in an intention–behaviour gap(Reference Papies35,Reference Sheeran and Webb36) . Michie et al.’s(Reference Michie, van Stralen and West65) framework suggests that three essential conditions are needed for implementing a successful behaviour change: capability, opportunity and motivation. Accordingly, intent is only one component of behaviour change, but this does not diminish its importance when developing public health interventions. Further research is needed to investigate what additional factors will support those intending to reduce their SSB consumption to succeed.

More broadly, for risk perceptions to have any influence, they should be conveyed in a way that limits opportunity for self-exemption, for example, well-designed social marketing campaigns(Reference Morley, Niven and Dixon47,Reference Robles, Blitstein and Lieberman66) and factual on-bottle warning labels(Reference Acton and Hammond67Reference VanEpps and Roberto73). Interventions/campaigns will need to address the self-exemptions that may also arise from people being unclear on what constitutes risky SSB consumption, unaided by the lack of quantified limits in the Australian Dietary Guidelines(15). Qualitative data indicate that Australian consumers’ perceptions of excessive consumption vary substantially(Reference Miller, Braunack-Mayer and Wakefiled14). Moreover, while participants could name the potential health effects associated with SSB consumption, they tended to see these health effects as having low personal relevance and that could be offset by ‘balancing’ sugary drink consumption with diet and exercise(Reference Miller, Braunack-Mayer and Wakefiled14). Interventions/campaigns will need to be designed to avoid dismissive reactions to information regarding unhealthy consumption behaviours that are common(Reference van ‘t Riet and Ruiter74) and reinforced by industry marketing practices that downplay the risks(75).

Each of the social and environmental exposure variables differentiated those ‘somewhat’ from ‘not at all’ likely to reduce SSB consumption in the bivariate analyses, but not in the multivariate analyses adjusting for demographics. Age remained a significant predictor throughout and so could have masked the relationship due to young adults being both higher SSB consumers and more influenced by social and environmental variables. Relationships between social and environmental variables and a reduction, or intended reduction, in SSB consumption were observed in studies of adolescents and university students(Reference Riebl, MacDougal and Hill37,Reference Ezendam, Evans and Stigler39,Reference Deliens, Clarys and De Bourdeaudhuij40,Reference Gregorio-Pascual and Mahler76) . Moreover, population-level environmental interventions addressing SSB consumption have been effective(Reference von Philipsborn, Stratil and Burns77).

Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design and self-reported intentions to change. There is a noted intention–behaviour gap(Reference Papies35,Reference Sheeran and Webb36) , and therefore, the extent to which intentions translate into behaviour are ultimately unknown in this study. Measures were based on existing literature but were rudimentary (i.e. single-item questions for complex behaviours) due to questionnaire length and telephone survey methodology. Future research would benefit from using validated measurement scales, conducting follow-ups of behaviours and investigating mediators of the relationship between social and environmental factors and SSB consumption, as suggested in the theoretical models of behaviour change. To truly assess the predictors of change in behaviour(s), a longitudinal study is warranted, but was beyond resourcing of the current study. The results may not be generalisable to jurisdictions where population-wide interventions have already been implemented.

Obesity and other health effects associated with SSB consumption are global major burdens of disease. However, many countries have been slow to implement population-wide strategies to reduce consumption. This study showed that those who are aware of the risks and acknowledge that they consume too much have intentions to change. Capitalising on these intentions to facilitate behaviour change is possible through policy reforms that have successfully reduced SSB consumption in other countries (e.g. taxes, warning labels) and would add value to educational approaches that raise the awareness of health risks associated with SSB consumption.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements: Thank you to the Social Research Centre for conducting the fieldwork component of the study. Financial support: This research was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant. C.M. is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship, a Cancer Council Principal Research Fellowship, and a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship, and M.W. is supported by an NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship. These funders have not had any role in the design, analysis or writing of this article. Conflict of interest: C.M., K.E., J.D., M.W., J.C., D.R., S.D. and G.W. declared no competing interests. S.P. declares expert membership of Australian government’s Health Star Ratings Committees, and J.C. declares membership of the Social Sciences and Economy Advisory Group of Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Authorship: C.M. conceptualised and led the design of the study with substantial contributions from J.D., K.E., M.W., S.P., S.D., J.C., D.R., G.W. and J.M. J.D. and K.E. coordinated the questions, and J.D. conducted the analyses. J.D. and C.M. drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed to the interpretations of data and critically revised the article for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving research study participants were approved by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee. Verbal consent was obtained from all participants prior to commencing the telephone interview and was formally recorded.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021000239

References

Malik, VS, Pan, A, Willett, WC et al. (2013) Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 98, 10841102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vartanian, LR, Schwartz, MB & Brownell, KD (2007) Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 97, 667675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Te Morenga, L, Mallard, S & Mann, J (2012) Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ 346, e7492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malik, VS, Popkin, BM, Bray, GA et al. (2010) Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 33, 24772483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernabe, E, Vehkalahti, MM, Sheiham, A et al. (2014) Sugar-sweetened beverages and dental caries in adults: a 4-year prospective study. J Dent 42, 952958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sohn, W, Burt, BA & Sowers, MR (2006) Carbonated soft drinks and dental caries in the primary dentition. J Dent Res 85, 262266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Rompay, MI, McKeown, NM, Goodman, E et al. (2015) Sugar-sweetened beverage intake is positively associated with baseline triglyceride concentrations, and changes in intake are inversely associated with changes in HDL cholesterol over 12 months in a multi-ethnic sample of children. J Nutr 145, 23892395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Te Morenga, LA, Howatson, AJ, Jones, RM et al. (2014) Dietary sugars and cardiometabolic risk: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the effects on blood pressure and lipids. Am J Clin Nutr 100, 6579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Micha, R, Peñalvo, JL, Cudhea, F et al. (2017) Association between dietary factors and mortality from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in the United States. JAMA 317, 912924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, FB & Malik, VS (2010) Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: epidemiologic evidence. Physiol Behav 100, 4754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popkin, BM & Hawkes, C (2016) Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: patterns, trends, and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4, 174186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2015) Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adult and Children. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
Welsh, JA, Lundeen, EA & Stein, AD (2013) The sugar-sweetened beverage wars: public health and the role of the beverage industry. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 20, 401406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, C, Braunack-Mayer, A, Wakefiled, M et al. (2019) “When we were young, it really was a treat; now sugar is just the norm every day” – a qualitative study of parents’ and young adults’ perceptions and consumption of sugary drinks. Health Promot J Austr 31, 4757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (2013) Australian Dietary Guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC.Google Scholar
Rothman, RL, Housam, R, Weiss, H et al. (2006) Patient understanding of food labels. Am J Prev Med 31, 391398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brownbill, AL, Braunack-Mayer, A & Miller, C (2019) Health star ratings: what’s on the labels of Australian beverages? Health Promot J Austr 30, 114118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Backholer, K, Blake, M & Vandevijvere, S (2017) Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an update on the year that was 2017. Public Health Nutr 20, 32193224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO (2018) La Ley Chilena De Etiquetado De Alimentos (The Chilean Food Labelling Law). Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2017) A Picture of Overweight and Obesity in Australia 2017. Cat. No. PHE 216. Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) National Health Survey: First Results, 2017–18. 4364.0.55.001. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2015) Australian Health Survey: Nutrition First Results – Foods and Nutrients, 2011–12. Consumption of Sweetened Beverages. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
Pennay, A, Cheetham, A, Droste, N et al. (2015) An examination of the prevalence, consumer profiles, and patterns of energy drink use, with and without alcohol, in Australia. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 39, 14851492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, CM, Meng, X, Hendrie, GA et al. (2016) Obesity, socio-demographic and attitudinal factors associated with sugar-sweetened beverage consumption: australian evidence. Aust N Z J Public Health 40, 7177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, S, Rosenberg, M, Wood, L et al. (2013) Soft drink consumption patterns among Western Australians. J Nutr Educ Behav 45, 525532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, E & Powell, LM (2013) Consumption patterns of sugar-sweetened beverages in the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet 113, 4353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivard, C, Smith, D, McCann, SE et al. (2012) Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages: a survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Public Health Nutr 15, 13551361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsen, M, Myhre, J & Andersen, L (2016) Beverage consumption patterns among Norwegian adults. Nutrients 8, 561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drewnowski, A & Rehm, CD (2015) Socioeconomic gradient in consumption of whole fruit and 100 % fruit juice among US children and adults. Nutr J 14, 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, S, Onufrak, S, Blanck, HM et al. (2013) Characteristics associated with consumption of sports and energy drinks among US adults: national Health Interview Survey, 2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 113, 112119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, C, Ettridge, K, Wakefield, M et al. (2020) Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, juice, artificially-sweetened soda and bottled water: an Australian population study. Nutrients 12, 817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M & Ajzen, I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50, 179211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M (2008) A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Med Decis Making 28, 834844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papies, EK (2017) Situating interventions to bridge the intention-behaviour gap: a framework for recruiting nonconscious processes for behaviour change. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 11, e12323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheeran, P & Webb, TL (2016) The intention–behavior gap. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 10, 503518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riebl, SK, MacDougal, C, Hill, C et al. (2016) Beverage choices of adolescents and their parents using the theory of planned behavior: a mixed methods analysis. J Acad Nutr Diet 116, 226239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mousavi, SM, Sharafkhani, N, Didarloo, P et al. (2019) Using the theory of planned behavior to explain intent to consume sugar-sweetened beverages among secondary school students. Int J Pediatr 7, 94139422.Google Scholar
Ezendam, NPM, Evans, AE, Stigler, MH et al. (2010) Cognitive and home environmental predictors of change in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents. Br J Nutr 103, 768774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deliens, T, Clarys, P, De Bourdeaudhuij, I et al. (2015) Correlates of university students’ soft and energy drink consumption according to gender and residency. Nutrients 7, 65506566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, M, Catalano, HP, Nahar, VK et al. (2017) Applying Multi-Theory Model (MTM) of health behavior change to predict water consumption instead of sugar-sweetened beverages. J Res Health Sci 17, e00370.Google ScholarPubMed
Gase, LN, Robles, B, Barragan, NC et al. (2014) Relationship between nutritional knowledge and the amount of sugar-sweetened beverages consumed in Los Angeles County. Health Educ Behav 41, 431439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collado-Rivera, M, Branscum, P, Larson, D et al. (2018) Evaluating the determinants of sugary beverage consumption among overweight and obese adults: an application of the integrative model of behavioural prediction. Health Educ J 77, 109125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstock, IM (1974) Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr 2, 328335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol 91, 93114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrer, RA, Klein, WMP, Persoskie, A et al. (2016) The tripartite model of risk perception (TRIRISK): distinguishing deliberative, affective, and experiential components of perceived risk. Ann Behav Med 50, 653663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morley, BC, Niven, PH, Dixon, HG et al. (2018) Controlled cohort evaluation of the LiveLighter mass media campaign’s impact on adults’ reported consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. BMJ Open 8, e019574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kite, J, Gale, J, Grunseit, A et al. (2018) Impact of the Make Healthy Normal mass media campaign (Phase 1) on knowledge, attitudes and behaviours: a cohort study. Aust N Z J Public Health 42, 269276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boles, M, Adams, A, Gredler, A et al. (2014) Ability of a mass media campaign to influence knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about sugary drinks and obesity. Prev Med 67, Suppl. 1, S40S45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grummon, AH & Hall, MG (2020) Sugary drink warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. PLoS Med 17, e1003120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rampersaud, GC, Kim, H, Gao, Z et al. (2014) Knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors of adults concerning nonalcoholic beverages suggest some lack of comprehension related to sugars. Nutr Res 34, 134142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, S, Onufrak, S, Sherry, B et al. (2014) The relationship between health-related knowledge and sugar-sweetened beverage intake among US adults. J Acad Nutr Diet 114, 10591066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lundeen, EA, Park, S, Onufrak, S et al. (2018) Adolescent sugar-sweetened beverage intake is associated with parent intake, not knowledge of health risks. Am J Health Promot 32, 16611670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S, Lundeen, EA, Pan, L et al. (2017) Impact of knowledge of health conditions on sugar-sweetened beverage intake varies among US adults. Am J Health Promot 32, 14021408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, N, Worsley, A, Wang, W et al. (2017) Country context, personal values and nutrition trust: associations with perceptions of beverage healthiness in five countries in the Asia Pacific region. Food Qual Prefer 60, 123131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H & House, L (2014) Linking consumer health perceptions to consumption of nonalcoholic beverages. Agric Resour Econ Rev 43, 165901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, T & Siegrist, M (2015) Children’s and parents’ health perception of different soft drinks. Br J Nutr 113, 526535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munsell, CR, Harris, JL, Sarda, V et al. (2016) Parents’ beliefs about the healthfulness of sugary drink options: opportunities to address misperceptions. Public Health Nutr 19, 4654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, C-Q, Wong, MC-Y, Zhang, R et al. (2019) Adolescent sugar-sweetened beverage consumption: an extended Health Action Process Approach. Appetite 141, 104332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australian Communications and Media Authority (2017) Communications Report 2015–16. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
Miller, C, Dono, J, Wakefield, M et al. (2019) Are Australians ready for warning labels, marketing bans and sugary drink taxes? Two cross-sectional surveys measuring support for policy responses to sugar-sweetened beverages. BMJ Open 9, e027962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia; Cat. No. 2033.0.55.001. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
Brewer, NT, Chapman, GB, Gibbons, FX et al. (2007) Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol 26, 136145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheeran, P, Harris, PR & Epton, T (2014) Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychol Bull 140, 511543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michie, S, van Stralen, MM & West, R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 6, 42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robles, B, Blitstein, JL, Lieberman, AJ et al. (2015) The relationship between amount of soda consumed and intention to reduce soda consumption among adults exposed to the Choose Health LA ‘Sugar Pack’ health marketing campaign. Public Health Nutr 18, 25822591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acton, RB & Hammond, D (2018) The impact of price and nutrition labelling on sugary drink purchases: results from an experimental marketplace study. Appetite 121, 129137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billich, N, Blake, MR, Backholer, K et al. (2018) The effect of sugar-sweetened beverage front-of-pack labels on drink selection, health knowledge and awareness: an online randomised controlled trial. Appetite 128, 233241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, MR, Lancsar, E, Peeters, A et al. (2018) The effect of sugar-sweetened beverage price increases and educational messages on beverage purchasing behavior among adults. Appetite 126, 156162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bollard, T, Maubach, N, Walker, N et al. (2016) Effects of plain packaging, warning labels, and taxes on young people’s predicted sugar-sweetened beverage preferences: an experimental study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, GE, Zatz, LY, Svirsky, D et al. (2018) The effect of graphic warnings on sugary-drink purchasing. Psychol Sci 29, 13211333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberto, CA, Wong, D, Musicus, A et al. (2016) The influence of sugar-sweetened beverage health warning labels on parents’ choices. Pediatrics 137, 131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanEpps, EM & Roberto, CA (2016) The influence of sugar-sweetened beverage warnings: a randomized trial of adolescents’ choices and beliefs. Am J Prev Med 51, 664672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van ‘t Riet, J & Ruiter, RAC (2013) Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: an overview and implications for future research. Health Psychol Rev 7, S104S136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) (2017) PHAI Joins Center for Science in the Public Interest in Filing Lawsuit Against Coca-Cola for Deceptive Marketing. https://www.phaionline.org/2017/01/04/phai-joins-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest-in-filing-lawsuit-against-coca-cola-for-deceptive-marketing/ (accessed September 2019.Google Scholar
Gregorio-Pascual, P & Mahler, HIM (2020) Effects of interventions based on the theory of planned behavior on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption intentions and behavior. Appetite 145, 104491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Philipsborn, P, Stratil, JM, Burns, J et al. (2019) Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 6, 14651858.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Coding of outcome variables from responses to questions about intentions to reduce sugary drink consumption

Figure 1

Table 2 Sample characteristics by the likelihood of reducing sugary drink consumption in the next 6 months

Figure 2

Table 3 Nominal logistical regression analyses

Supplementary material: File

Dono et al. supplementary material

Dono et al. supplementary material

Download Dono et al. supplementary material(File)
File 27.5 KB