Trial reportPublic health nutrition2023
Trial report in Public health nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutrition Literacy, Hydration Awareness and Food Label Use in School Populations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Students and Teachers Across European Contexts.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
- Health-related perceptions and drinking motives as actionable targets for precision prevention of high sugar-sweetened beverage intake among Chinese adolescents.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Characterisation of At-Scale Community Health Interventions Aimed to Improve Healthy Eating Behaviour in Australia: A Rapid Review.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Review
- Beverage Consumption Patterns Among Navajo Children Aged 2-5 Years.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAdolescents are high consumers of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), which contribute to overweight and obesity - a significant public health issue. Evidence suggests that replacing SSB with water and school-based interventions can reduce consumption. This study examines the acceptability of a previously trialled intervention (Thirsty? Choose Water!) in regional and remote secondary schools.
designAn open-label randomised controlled trial using a two-by-two factorial design tested the outcomes of a behavioural and/or environmental intervention on SSB and water consumption.
settingRegional and remote secondary schools (public, catholic and independent) within the boundaries of two regional Local Health Districts within New South Wales.
participantsTwenty-four schools participated in the study. The target group was year 7 students (
resultsInterventions showed high levels of acceptability. Students demonstrated changes in knowledge, attitudes and consumption behaviours. Multivariable ordinal logression analysis demonstrated that all interventions increased the odds of students increasing their water consumption (though not statistically significant). Conversely, the combined (OR: 0·75; 95 % CI: 0·59, 0·97) or environmental intervention (OR: 0·68; 95 % CI: 0·51, 0·90) had greater odds of reducing SSB consumption and was statistically significant.
conclusionsThis study builds on recent Australian evidence regarding the impact of school-based interventions on water and SSB consumption. In this study, despite a minor intervention change, and the impacts of fires, floods and COVID-19 on study implementation, the interventions were highly regarded by the school communities with positive outcomes.
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.