Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34129022›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Association of a Sweetened Beverage Tax With Purchases of Beverages and High-Sugar Foods at Independent Stores in Philadelphia.

Sara N Bleich, Caroline G Dunn, Mark J Soto, Jiali Yan, Laura A Gibson, Hannah G Lawman, Nandita Mitra, Caitlin M Lowery, Ana Peterhans, Sophia V Hua and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sara N BleichDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Caroline G DunnDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mark J SotoDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jiali YanDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Laura A GibsonDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Hannah G LawmanDivision of Chronic Disease Prevention, Philadelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Nandita MitraDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Caitlin M LoweryDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ana PeterhansDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Sophia V HuaDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Christina A RobertoDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The relationship between a sweetened beverage tax and changes in the prices and purchases of beverages and high-sugar food is understudied in the long term and in small independent food retail stores where sugar-sweetened beverages are among the most commonly purchased items. Objective: To examine whether a 1.5 cent-per-fluid-ounce excise tax on sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was associated with sustained changes in beverage prices and purchases, as well as calories purchased from beverages and high-sugar foods, over 2 years at small independent stores. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences approach to compare changes in beverage prices and purchases of beverages and high-sugar foods (candy, sweet snacks) at independent stores in Philadelphia and Baltimore, Maryland (a nontaxed control) before and 2 years after tax implementation, which occurred on January 1, 2017. Price comparisons were also made to independent stores in Philadelphia's neighboring counties. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in mean price (measured in cents per fluid ounce) of taxed and nontaxed beverages, mean fluid ounces purchased of taxed and nontaxed beverages, and mean total calories purchased from beverages and high-sugar foods. Results: Compared with Baltimore independent stores, taxed beverage prices in Philadelphia increased 2.06 cents per fluid ounce (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.38 cents per fluid ounce; P < .001), with 137% of the tax passed through to prices 2 years after tax implementation, while nontaxed beverage prices had no statistically significant change. A total of 116 independent stores and 4738 customer purchases (1950 [41.2%] women; 4351 [91.8%] age 18 years or older; 1006 [21.2%] White customers, 3185 [67.2%] Black customers) at independent stores were assessed for price and purchase comparisons. Purchases of taxed beverages declined by 6.1 fl oz (95% CI, -9.9 to -2.4 fl oz; P < .001), corresponding to a 42% decline in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore; there were no significant changes in purchases of nontaxed beverages. Although there was no significant moderation by neighborhood income or customer education level, exploratory stratified analyses revealed that declines in taxed beverage purchases were larger among customers shopping in low-income neighborhoods (-7.1 fl oz; 95% CI, -13.0 to -1.1 fl oz; P = .001) and individuals with lower education levels (-6.9 fl oz; 95% CI, -12.5 to -1.3 fl oz; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that a tax on sweetened beverages was associated with increases in price and decreases in purchasing. Beverage excise taxes may be an effective policy to sustainably decrease purchases of sweetened drinks and calories from sugar in independent stores, with large reductions in lower-income areas and among customers with lower levels of education.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBaltimoreCommerceConsumer BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLegislation, FoodMaleMiddle AgedPhiladelphiaSugar-Sweetened BeveragesTaxes

Identifiers

PMID34129022
PMCPMC8207239

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.