Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35331245›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022

Sugar-sweetened beverage tax implementation processes: results of a scoping review.

Sarah Forberger, Lucia Reisch, Biljana Meshkovska, Karolina Lobczowska, Daniel Alexander Scheller, Janine Wendt, Lara Christianson, Jennifer Frense, Jürgen Michael Steinacker, Aleksandra Luszczynska and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

12 authors.

Sarah ForbergerDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Achterstraße 30, 28359, Bremen, Germany. forberger@leibniz-bips.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7169-675X
Lucia ReischDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Achterstraße 30, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Biljana MeshkovskaInstitute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Domus Medica, Gaustad, Sognsvannsveien 9, 2. etg., 0372, Oslo, Norway.
Karolina LobczowskaDepartment of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ostrowskiego Street 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland.
Daniel Alexander SchellerDivision of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine II, Ulm University Medical Center, Leimgrubenweg 14, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Janine WendtDivision of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine II, Ulm University Medical Center, Leimgrubenweg 14, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Lara ChristiansonDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Achterstraße 30, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Jennifer FrenseDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Achterstraße 30, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Jürgen Michael SteinackerDivision of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine II, Ulm University Medical Center, Leimgrubenweg 14, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Aleksandra LuszczynskaDepartment of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ostrowskiego Street 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland.
Hajo ZeebDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Achterstraße 30, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
PEN Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is seen as a win-win situation for governments. It is argued that SSB taxes are relatively easy to implement from a practical perspective compared to for example other nutrition policies. However, the implementation of SSB taxation laws does not happen by itself. Therefore, this work examines implementation processes for SSB taxation in terms of (1) pre-implementation context, (2) taxation instruments used and (3) interactions in the implementation process. Ten databases and grey literature were systematically searched for studies reporting on SSB taxation implementation processes up to February 2020. All studies (N = 1248) were screened independently by two reviewers according to predefined criteria. The selection of variables to be extracted was based on the policy cycle heuristic and informed by intervention implementation research. Information on the process of implementing SSB taxation is limited. Only six cases based on three publications were identified, indicating a gap in this research area. SSB taxation implementation was accomplished by hiring a subcontractor for the implementation or using pre-existing tax collection structures. Political and public support within the implementation process seems to be supportive for the city of Berkeley and for Portugal but was not reported for the Pacific Islands. However, the existing data are very limited, and further research on SSB taxation implementation processes is needed to determine whether the aim of the policy and the envisaged outcome are linked in practice. Registration The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) (osf.io/7w84q/).

Indexed as

Sugar-Sweetened BeveragesBeveragesHumansNutrition PolicyObesityTaxesImplementationImplementation processPublic policySSB taxation

Identifiers

PMID35331245
PMCPMC8944035

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.