Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36089123›Full record

ArticleAppetite2022

Adolescents' perspectives on soft drinks after the introduction of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: A focus group study using reflexive thematic analysis.

Catrin P Jones, Roxanne Armstrong-Moore, Tarra L Penney, Steven Cummins, Sofie Armitage, Jean Adams, Martin White

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Appetite, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. How Are Adolescents Participating in the Transformation of Healthy Food Environments? A Scoping Review of Empirical Research.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Catrin P JonesMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Electronic address: catrin.jones@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Roxanne Armstrong-MooreMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Tarra L PenneyGlobal Food System and Policy Research, School of Global Health, Faculty of Health, York University, Canada.
Steven CumminsPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sofie ArmitageMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jean AdamsMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Martin WhiteMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBYork University · CA

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKDepartment of Health 16/130/01Department of Health 16/49/01Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018, is a fiscal policy to incentivise reformulation of eligible soft drinks. We aimed to explore perceptions of sugar, sugary drinks and the SDIL among adolescents in the UK post-implementation.

methods23 adolescents aged 11-14 years participated in four focus groups in 2018-2019. A semi-structured topic guide elicited relevant perspectives and included a group task to rank a selection of UK soft drinks based on their sugar content. Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis was used to undertake inductive analysis.

resultsFour main themes were present: 1) Sweetened drinks are bad for you, but some are worse than others; 2) Awareness of the SDIL and ambivalence towards it 3) The influence of drinks marketing: value, pricing, and branding; 4) Openness to population-level interventions. Young people had knowledge of the health implications of excess sugar consumption, which did not always translate to their own consumption. Ambivalence and a mixed awareness surrounding the SDIL was also present. Marketing and parental and school restriction influenced their consumption patterns, as did taste, enjoyment and consuming drinks for functional purposes (e.g., to give them energy). Openness to future population-level interventions to limit consumption was also present.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that adolescents are accepting of interventions that require little effort from young people in order to reduce their sugar consumption. Further education-based interventions are likely to be unhelpful, in contexts where adolescents understand the negative consequences of excess sugar and SSB consumption.

Indexed as

Carbonated BeveragesSugarsAdolescentDietary SugarsFocus GroupsHumansUnited KingdomDietary SugarsSugarsAdolescentsChildrenObesitySoft drinksSoft drinks industry levySugar

Identifiers

PMID36089123
PMCPMC7614551
OpenAlexW4295093474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.