ArticleBMJ open2019
Support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy among UK adults: cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptability of policies targeting dietary behaviours and physical activity: a systematic review of tools and outcomes.European journal of public health · 2022Pooled it
- Characterising public opinion for food-based fiscal policies in the UK.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2026Article
- Asset stranding could open new pathways to food systems transformation.Nature food · 2025Review
- Are food taxes for healthy eating acceptable? A survey of public attitudes in the UK.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Beyond individual responsibility: Exploring lay understandings of the contribution of environments on personal trajectories of obesity.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- A systematic scoping review evaluating sugar-sweetened beverage taxation from a systems perspective.Nature food · 2023Article
- Exploring views of members of the public and policymakers on the acceptability of population level dietary and active-travel policies: a qualitative study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- The relationship between parent's self-reported exposure to food marketing and child and parental purchasing and consumption outcomes in five countries: findings from the International Food Policy Study.Journal of nutritional science · 2023Article
- Public perception of the tax on sweetened beverages in France.Public health nutrition · 2022Article
- Characterising trusted spokespeople in noncommunicable disease prevention: A systematic scoping review.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Public Support for the Imposition of a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and the Determinants of Such Support in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The nexus of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Insights on demographics, enablers and barriers.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- How should we evaluate sweetened beverage tax policies? A review of worldwide experience.BMC public health · 2021Review
- Article
- Newspaper coverage of food insecurity in UK, 2016-2019: a multi-method analysis.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Examining the news media reaction to a national sugary beverage tax in South Africa: a quantitative content analysis.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Is Obesity Policy in England Fit for Purpose? Analysis of Government Strategies and Policies, 1992-2020.The Milbank quarterly · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo answer four questions: What are attitudes, knowledge and social norms around sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs)? What are current levels of trust in messages on SSBs? What is current support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy (SDIL)? What is the association between attitudes, knowledge, social norms, trust, SSB consumption and sociodemographic factors; and support for, and perceived effectiveness of, the SDIL?
designCross-sectional online survey.
settingUK.
participantsUK respondents to the 2017 International Food Policy Study aged 18-64 years who provided information on all variables of interest (n=3104). OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported perceived effectiveness of, and support for, the SDIL.
resultsMost participants supported the SDIL (70%), believed it would be effective (71%), had a positive attitude to SSBs (62%), had knowledge of the link between SSBs and obesity (90%), and trusted messages from health experts (61%), but not those from the food and beverage industry (73%). Nearly half (46%) had negative social norms about drinking SSBs. In adjusted models, older age, non-consumption of SSBs, social norms to not drinks SSBs, knowledge of the link between SSBs and obesity and trust in health expert messages were associated with greater support for the SDIL, whereas having dependent children and trusting messages from the food and beverage industry were associated with less support. In adjusted models, older age was associated with lower perceived effectiveness of the SDIL, whereas social norms to not drink SSBs, negative attitudes to SSBs and trusting messages from health experts and the food and beverage industry were associated with greater perceived effectiveness.
conclusionsThere was strong support for the SDIL and belief that it would be effective. Those with more 'public health' orientated norms and trust were generally more likely to support the SDIL or believe that it would be effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.