ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021
Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- An umbrella review of the acceptability of fiscal and pricing policies to reduce diet-related noncommunicable disease.Nutrition reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation on sugars intake and dental caries: an umbrella review of a global perspective.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- A Behaviorally Informed Mobile App to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Grocery Shopping (SwapSHOP): Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Trial
- Prophylactic Effects of Dietary Patterns and Indexes, Nutrition and Lifestyle on Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- How is health equity considered in policy evaluations employing quasi-experimental methods? A scoping review and content analysis.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Ultra-processed food consumption in UK adolescents: distribution, trends, and sociodemographic correlates using the National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2008/09 to 2018/19.European journal of nutrition · 2024Article
- Integrating health geography and behavioral economic principles to strengthen context-specific behavior change interventions.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- The equitable impact of sugary drink taxation structures on sugary drink consumption among Canadians: a modelling study using the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition.Public health nutrition · 2024Article
- New Zealand household purchases of sugar-sweetened, artificially sweetened, and unsweetened beverages: 2015-2019.Public health nutrition · 2023Observational
- Article
- RETRACTION: 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.) · 2023Article
- Representational shifts: increasing motivation for bottled water through simulation-enhancing advertisements.BMC public health · 2023Article
- A systematic scoping review evaluating sugar-sweetened beverage taxation from a systems perspective.Nature food · 2023Article
- Projected health and economic impacts of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in Germany: A cross-validation modelling study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Building upon the sugar beverage tax in Mexico: a modelling study of tax alternatives to increase benefits.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- High but decreasing prevalence of overweight in preschool children: encouragement for further action.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Association Between a State-Level Fat Tax and Fast Food Purchases.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Adherence to UK dietary guidelines in school-aged children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) cohort.The British journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Whither (or wither?) public health?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- Evolution of food and beverage prices after the front-of-package labelling regulations in Chile.BMJ global health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-12-05Error in Analyses · Error in Methods · Error in Results and/or Conclusions · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Retract and Replace · · see https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/12/e077059
- Retracted
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine changes in household purchases of drinks and confectionery one year after implementation of the UK soft drinks industry levy (SDIL).
designControlled interrupted time series analysis.
participantsMembers of a panel of households reporting their purchasing on a weekly basis to a market research company (average weekly number of participants n=22 183), March 2014 to March 2019.
interventionA two tiered tax levied on manufacturers of soft drinks, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8 g sugar/100 mL (high tier) are taxed at £0.24/L and drinks with ≥5 to <8 g sugar/100 mL (low tier) are taxed at £0.18/L. Drinks with <5 g sugar/100 mL (no levy) are not taxed.
main outcome measuresAbsolute and relative differences in the volume of, and amount of sugar in, soft drinks categories, all soft drinks combined, alcohol, and confectionery purchased per household per week one year after implementation of the SDIL compared with trends before the announcement of the SDIL.
resultsIn March 2019, compared with the counterfactual estimated from pre-announcement trends, purchased volume of drinks in the high levy tier decreased by 155 mL (95% confidence interval 240.5 to 69.5 mL) per household per week, equivalent to 44.3% (95% confidence interval 59.9% to 28.7%), and sugar purchased in these drinks decreased by 18.0 g (95% confidence interval 32.3 to 3.6 g), or 45.9% (68.8% to 22.9%). Purchases of low tier drinks decreased by 177.3 mL (225.3 to 129.3 mL) per household per week, or 85.9% (95.1% to 76.7%), with a 12.5 g (15.4 to 9.5 g) reduction in sugar in these drinks, equivalent to 86.2% (94.2% to 78.1%). Despite no overall change in volume of no levy drinks purchased, there was an increase in sugar purchased of 15.3 g (12.6 to 17.9 g) per household per week, equivalent to 166.4% (94.2% to 238.5%). When all soft drinks were combined, the volume of drinks purchased did not change, but sugar decreased by 29.5 g (55.8 to 3.1 g), or 9.8% (17.9% to 1.8%). Purchases of confectionery and alcoholic drinks did not change.
conclusionsCompared with trends before the SDIL was announced, one year after implementation, the volume of soft drinks purchased did not change. The amount of sugar in those drinks was 30 g, or 10%, lower per household per week-equivalent to one 250 mL serving of a low tier drink per person per week. The SDIL might benefit public health without harming industry.
trial registrationISRCTN18042742.
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.