ArticleBMC public health2020
Impact of a health marketing campaign on sugars intake by children aged 5-11 years and parental views on reducing children's consumption.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive review of carbonated soft drink consumption rates and their public health importance.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of the Change4Life Food Scanner app on children's diets and parental psychological outcomes: a randomised pilot and feasibility study.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Effects of dietary recommendations for reducing free sugar intakes, on free sugar intakes, dietary profiles and anthropometry: a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of nutrition · 2025Trial
- Countermarketing About Fruit Drinks, Alone or With Water Promotion: A 2019 Randomized Controlled Trial in Latinx Parents.American journal of public health · 2021Trial
- Parental Cognition Regarding Children's Sugar Consumption and Its Implications for Dental Caries Prevention: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Sugar reduction in complex food systems: linking metabolic mechanisms, matrix engineering, and safety evaluation.NPJ science of food · 2026Review
- Upstream Interventions to Promote Oral Health and Reduce Oral Health Inequalities: A Scoping Review.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Food Additives in Products with and Without Added Sugar on the Polish Market.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Economic and health impacts of the Change4Life Food Scanner app: Findings from a randomized pilot and feasibility study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Parents' awareness and perceptions of the Change4Life 100 cal snack campaign, and perceived impact on snack consumption by children under 11 years.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Weekday and Weekend Differences in Eating Habits, Physical Activity and Screen Time Behavior among a Sample of Primary School Children: The "Seven Days for My Health" Project.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- An Assessment of Behavior Change Techniques in Two Versions of a Dietary Mobile Application: The Change4Life Food Scanner.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- The Association between Free Sugars Consumption and Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Cross-Sectional Study among Chinese Adolescents.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe association between Free Sugars intake and non-communicable diseases such as obesity and dental caries is well documented and several countries are taking measures to reduce sugars intakes. Public Health England (PHE) instigated a range of approaches to reduce sugars, including a national health marketing campaign (Sugar Smart). The campaign aimed to raise awareness of the amount of sugars in foods and drinks and to encourage parents to reduce their children's intake. The aim of this study was to determine whether the campaign was effective in altering dietary behaviour, by assessing any impact of the campaign on sugars intake among children aged 5-11 years. Parental perceptions of the campaign and barriers to reducing sugars intake were also explored.
methodsParents of 873 children aged 5-11 years, identified from an existing PHE database, were invited to take part. Dietary information was collected online using Intake24 before, during, and at 1, 10 and 12 months following the campaign. Change in sugars intake was assessed using mixed effects linear regression models. One-to-one telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of parents to explore perceptions of the campaign and identify barriers and facilitators to reducing children's sugars intake.
resultsCompletion rates for dietary assessment ranged from 61 to 72% across the follow up time points. Qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with 20 parents. Total sugars intake decreased on average by ~ 6.2 g/day (SD 43.8) at peak campaign and the percentage of energy from total sugars significantly decreased immediately and 1 year post campaign. The percentage of energy from Free Sugars significantly decreased across all time points with the exception of the long term follow up at 12-months post campaign. The percentage of energy intake from total fat increased. Parents expressed a willingness to reduce sugars intakes, however, identified barriers including time constraints, the normalisation of sugary treats, and confusing information.
conclusionsA health marketing campaign had a positive impact in reducing sugars intake but reductions in sugars were not sustained. Parents want to reduce their child's sugars intake but societal barriers and confusion over which sources of sugars to avoid hamper efforts to change.
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.