ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
Evaluating the implementation and customer acceptability of a sugar-sweetened beverage reduction initiative in thirty Australian aquatic and recreation centres.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthy Food Service Guidelines for Worksites and Institutions: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Changes in Local Government Priorities and Stakeholder Satisfaction Following a Healthy Drinks Capacity-Building Intervention in Sports and Recreation Facilities in Victoria, Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Article
- Creating healthy food environments in recreation and sport settings using choice architecture: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2023Article
- Observational
- Understanding Enablers and Barriers to the Implementation of Nutrition Standards in Publicly Funded Institutions in Victoria.Nutrients · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the feasibility of implementation and customer perspectives of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) reduction initiative across YMCA Victoria aquatic and recreation centres.
designTwo data sources were used to assess implementation and customer acceptability. Photo audits were used to assess the type of drinks available for purchase 6 months prior to initiative implementation and 6 months after, in thirty centres. Change in the range of SSB targeted for removal, non-targeted SSB, as well as drinks classified as 'red' (limit), 'amber' (choose carefully) and 'green' (best choice), was reported. Customer surveys were conducted in three centres to assess acceptability and awareness of the initiative. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used to analyse customers' perspectives of the initiative.
setting30 aquatic and recreation centres in Victoria, Australia.
participants806 customers.
resultsAt post-implementation, 87 % of centres had removed targeted SSB. 'Red' drinks reduced by an average of 4·4 drink varieties compared to pre-implementation (11·9 varieties) and 'green' drinks increased by 1·4 varieties (3·2 varieties pre-implementation). Customers were largely unaware of the SSB-reduction initiative (90 %) but supported YMCA Victoria in continuing the initiative (89 %), with many believing it would support children in making healthier choices.
conclusionsImplementation of an initiative that limited SSB availability across a large number of aquatic and recreation centres was feasible and considered acceptable by customers. Customers frequently mentioned the importance of protecting children from consuming SSB.
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.