ArticleBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2025
Changes in household purchasing of soft drinks following the UK soft drinks industry levy by household income and composition: controlled interrupted time series analysis, March 2014 to November 2019.
Article in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2025. 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.
- The impact of the UK soft drink industry levy on ethnic inequalities in admission rates for caries-related extractions.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Beverage consumption among adults in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada prior to the implementation of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax.BMC public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The WHO recommends taxes on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) to improve population health. We examined changes in volume of and amount of sugar in purchases of soft drinks according to household income and composition, 19 months following the implementation of the UK soft drinks industry levy. Methods: Data were from the Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods panel, a market research panel which collects data on weekly household purchases (mean weekly number of households=21 908), March 2014-November 2019. Interrupted time series analysis of volume and sugar purchases was used to estimate absolute and relative differences in the volume and amount of sugar in soft drinks, confectionery and alcohol purchased weekly by household income (<£20 000, £20-50 000 or >£50 000) and composition (presence of children (<16 years) in the household (yes or no)), 19 months after soft drinks industry levy (SDIL) implementation, compared with the counterfactual scenario based on pre-announcement trends and using a control group (toiletries). Results: By November 2019, purchased weekly sugar in soft drinks fell by 7.46 g (95% CI: 12.05, 2.87) per household but volumes of drinks purchased remained unchanged, compared with the counterfactual. In low-income households, weekly sugar purchased in soft drinks decreased by 14.0% (95% CI: 12.1, 15.9) compared with the counterfactual but in high-income households increased by 3.4% (1.07, 5.75). Among households with children, sugar purchased decreased by 13.7% (12.1, 15.3) but increased in households without children by 5.0% (3.0, 7.0). Low-income households and those with children also reduced their weekly volume of soft drinks purchased by 5.7% (3.7, 7.7) and 8.5% (6.8, 10.2) respectively. There was no evidence of substitution to confectionary or alcohol. Conclusion: In the second year following implementation of the SDIL, effects on sugar purchased were greatest in those with the highest pre-SDIL purchasing levels (low-income households and those with children). The SDIL may contribute to reducing dietary inequalities. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18042742. Registered: August 2017.
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.