Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28804786›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2017

Health impact assessment of the UK soft drinks industry levy: a comparative risk assessment modelling study.

Adam D M Briggs, Oliver T Mytton, Ariane Kehlbacher, Richard Tiffin, Ahmed Elhussein, Mike Rayner, Susan A Jebb, Tony Blakely, Peter Scarborough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Who pays and Who benefits? A distributional health-economic evaluation of strengthening the UK soft drinks industry levy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Adam D M BriggsBritish Heart Foundation Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Oliver T MyttonUK Clinical Research Collaboration Centre for Diet and Activity Research and Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Ariane KehlbacherAgri-Food Economics and Social Sciences Division, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Richard TiffinAgri-Food Economics and Social Sciences Division, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Ahmed ElhusseinOxford University Medical School, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Mike RaynerBritish Heart Foundation Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
Tony BlakelyHealth Inequalities Research Programme, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Peter ScarboroughBritish Heart Foundation Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/15/34/31656Medical Research Council G0701865Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn March, 2016, the UK Government proposed a tiered levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs; high tax for drinks with >8 g of sugar per 100 mL, moderate tax for 5-8 g, and no tax for <5 g). We estimate the effect of possible industry responses to the levy on obesity, diabetes, and dental caries.

methodsWe modelled three possible industry responses: reformulation to reduce sugar concentration, an increase of product price, and a change of the market share of high-sugar, mid-sugar, and low-sugar drinks. For each response, we defined a better-case and worse-case health scenario. We developed a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the UK health impact of each scenario on prevalence of obesity and incidence of dental caries and type 2 diabetes. The model combined data for sales and consumption of SSBs, disease incidence and prevalence, price elasticity estimates, and estimates of the association between SSB consumption and disease outcomes. We drew the disease association parameters from a meta-analysis of experimental studies (SSBs and weight change), a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies (type 2 diabetes), and a prospective cohort study (dental caries).

findingsThe best modelled scenario for health is SSB reformulation, resulting in a reduction of 144 383 (95% uncertainty interval 5102-306 743; 0·9%) of 15 470 813 adults and children with obesity in the UK, 19 094 (6920-32 678; incidence reduction of 31·1 per 100 000 person-years) fewer incident cases of type 2 diabetes per year, and 269 375 (82 211-470 928; incidence reduction of 4·4 per 1000 person-years) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. An increase in the price of SSBs in the better-case scenario would result in 81 594 (3588-182 669; 0·5%) fewer adults and children with obesity, 10 861 (3899-18 964; 17·7) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 149 378 (45 231-262 013; 2·4) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. Changes to market share to increase the proportion of low-sugar drinks sold in the better-case scenario would result in 91 042 (4289-204 903; 0·6%) fewer adults and children with diabetes, 1528 (4414-21 785; 19·7) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 172 718 (47 919-294 499; 2·8) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. The greatest benefit for obesity and oral health would be among individuals aged younger than 18 years, with people aged older than 65 years having the largest absolute decreases in diabetes incidence.

interpretationThe health impact of the soft drinks levy is dependent on its implementation by industry. Uncertainty exists as to how industry will react and about estimation of health outcomes. Health gains could be maximised by substantial product reformulation, with additional benefits possible if the levy is passed on to purchasers through raising of the price of high-sugar and mid-sugar drinks and activities to increase the market share of low-sugar products.

fundingNone.

Identifiers

PMID28804786
PMCPMC5543265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.