Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36508172›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2023

Stakeholder arguments during the adoption of a sugar sweetened beverage tax in South Africa and their influence: a content analysis.

Safura Abdool Karim, Petronell Kruger, Natasha Mazonde, Agnes Erzse, Susan Goldstein, Karen Hofman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Safura Abdool KarimSAMRC Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Wits School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4843-9907
Petronell KrugerSAMRC Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Wits School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Natasha MazondeSAMRC Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Wits School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Agnes ErzseSAMRC Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Wits School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Susan GoldsteinSAMRC Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Wits School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Karen HofmanSAMRC Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Wits School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are recognised as an effective intervention to prevent obesity. More countries are adopting SSB taxes, but the process of the adoption is politically complex.

objectiveThis study aimed to analyse how public participation processes influenced the South African tax.

methodsWe conducted a content analysis of documents associated with the process of adopting the tax. Records were identified utilising the Parliamentary Monitoring Group database, including draft bills, meeting minutes and written submissions. The records were categorised and then inductively coded to identify themes and arguments.

resultsWe identified six cross-cutting themes advanced by stakeholders: economic considerations, impact on the vulnerable, responsiveness of an SSB tax to the problem of obesity, appropriateness of an SSB tax in South Africa, procedural concerns, and structure of the tax. Stakeholder views and arguments about the tax diverged based on their vested interests. The primary policymaker was most responsive to arguments concerning the economic impact of a tax, procedural concerns and the structure of the tax, reducing the effective rate to address industry concerns.

conclusionBoth supportive and opposing stakeholders influenced the tax. Economic arguments had a significant impact. Arguments in South Africa broadly echoed arguments advanced in many other jurisdictions.

Indexed as

Sugar-Sweetened BeveragesHumansObesitySouth AfricaTaxesdiet-relatednon-communicable diseasesfiscal policynon-communicable diseasesObesitysugary beverages

Identifiers

PMID36508172
PMCPMC9754008

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.