ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2024
Advertising and Stocking at Small Retailers: A Sweetened Beverage Excise Tax in Philadelphia.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-store beverage pricing and marketing before and after a sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Newfoundland and Labrador.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Philadelphia Beverage Tax's Impact on Beverage Ad Expenditures and Number of Ads Purchased.American journal of preventive medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn 2017, Philadelphia enacted a $0.015 per ounce excise tax on SBs that covered both sugar-sweetened beverages and artificially-sweetened beverages, which reduced purchasing and consumption. This study assessed whether the tax also changed beverage advertising or stocking practices that could influence consumer behavior among stores in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Philadelphia-adjacent counties not subject to the tax.
methodsUsing a longitudinal difference-in-differences approach, beverage advertising and availability changes were evaluated from 4-month pretax to 6-, 12-, and 24-month post-implementation in small independent stores in Philadelphia (n=34) and Philadelphia-adjacent counties (n=38) versus Baltimore (n=43), a demographically similar city without a tax. Mixed effects models tested whether beverage advertising/availability increased in Philadelphia and surrounding counties after implementation versus Baltimore, included store-level random intercepts, and were stratified by beverage tax status, type, size, and store ZIP code income. Data were collected from 2016 to 2018, and analyses were performed in 2022-2023.
resultsSB advertising increased post-tax in Philadelphia (6 months= +1.04 advertisements/store [95% CI=0.27, 1.80]; 12 months= +1.54 [95% CI=0.57, 2.52]; 24 months= +0.91 [95% CI=0.09, 1.72]) relative to Baltimore. This was driven by increased advertising of sweetened beverages in low-income ZIP codes. Marketing of SBs increased significantly in Philadelphia-adjacent counties relative to Baltimore. Although SB availability in Philadelphia did not change, it increased in surrounding county stores (6 months= +0.20 [95% CI=0.15, 0.25]; 12 months= +0.08 [95% CI=0.03, 0.12]) relative to Baltimore.
conclusionsMarketing of SBs, especially in low-income neighborhoods and in surrounding counties, increased following Philadelphia's beverage tax among small, independent retailers. These increases in advertising might have dampened the tax's effect on purchasing behaviors, although estimated effects on sales remained large.
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.