Table 3.
Odds of supporting a state tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB): a US Mid-Atlantic state registered voter sample (n 1000), February 2013
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | n | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI |
| Age (years) | |||||||
| 18–34 v. ≥35 | 946 | 1·30 | 0·75, 2·25 | 1·34 | 0·74, 2·44 | 1·27 | 0·62, 2·60 |
| Gender | |||||||
| Male v. female | 946 | 0·68* | 0·48, 0·98 | 0·73 | 0·50, 1·06 | 0·70 | 0·43, 1·13 |
| Race/ethnicity | |||||||
| White | 618 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |||
| African American/Black | 196 | 1·09 | 0·70, 1·70 | 1·15 | 0·70, 1·87 | 1·50 | 0·82, 2·75 |
| Other | 87 | 1·15 | 0·66, 2·01 | 1·05 | 0·57, 1·94 | 1·20 | 0·55, 2·61 |
| Political party | |||||||
| Democrat | 530 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |||
| Republican | 256 | 0·35* | 0·22, 0·56 | 0·35* | 0·22, 0·57 | 0·55* | 0·30, 0·99 |
| Independent or other | 160 | 0·49* | 0·30, 0·79 | 0·45* | 0·27, 0·75 | 0·45* | 0·23, 0·89 |
| Education | |||||||
| High school or less | 241 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |||
| Some college/associate’s degree | 218 | 1·69* | 1·02, 2·80 | 1·62 | 0·96, 2·71 | 1·69 | 0·89, 3·21 |
| 4-year college/bachelor’s degree | 247 | 1·68* | 1·01, 2·78 | 1·60 | 0·95, 2·71 | 1·35 | 0·70, 2·61 |
| Postgraduate | 206 | 2·05* | 1·17, 3·59 | 1·88* | 1·05, 3·37 | 1·50 | 0·71, 3·16 |
| Income, annual before taxes | |||||||
| ≥$US 100 000 | 218 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |||
| $US 50 000–<100 000 | 260 | 0·88 | 0·58, 1·36 | 0·94 | 0·60, 1·47 | 0·98 | 0·56, 1·73 |
| <$US 50 000 | 180 | 1·14 | 0·68, 1·92 | 1·10 | 0·64, 1·89 | 1·36 | 0·68, 2·72 |
| Daily SSB consumption | |||||||
| Yes v. no | 946 | – | 0·53* | 0·34, 0·84 | 0·64 | 0·38, 1·07 | |
| SSBs at home | |||||||
| Yes v. no | 946 | – | 0·73 | 0·50, 1·09 | 0·71 | 0·44, 1·14 | |
| Health-care provider suggested weight loss | |||||||
| Yes v. no | 911 | – | 0·64* | 0·44, 0·92 | 0·79 | 0·50, 1·25 | |
| SSB are habit forming or addictive | |||||||
| Neither | 151 | – | Ref. | Ref. | |||
| Addictive | 562 | – | 2·27* | 1·38, 3·73 | 0·96 | 0·48, 1·95 | |
| Habit forming | 188 | – | 1·97* | 1·09, 3·56 | 1·32 | 0·62, 2·81 | |
| Belief that SSB tax will be effective | |||||||
| Yes v. no | 890 | – | – | 2·78* | 1·69, 4·57 | ||
| Belief in SSB and obesity relationship in children | |||||||
| No, do not contribute | 97 | – | – | Ref. | |||
| Yes, only minor cause | 316 | – | – | 1·44 | 0·61, 3·36 | ||
| Yes, major cause | 464 | – | – | 2·80* | 1·14, 6·79 | ||
| Motivation among SSB drinkers to reduce consumption after health expert links SSB with obesity | |||||||
| Yes v. no | 799 | – | – | 1·31 | 0·78, 2·21 | ||
| Childhood obesity concern | |||||||
| Yes v. no | 946 | – | – | 1·09 | 0·56, 2·13 | ||
| Childhood obesity solution | |||||||
| Societal concern v. parental concern | 912 | – | – | 2·84* | 1·74, 4·64 | ||
| Model fit statistics | |||||||
| Akaike’s Information Criterion | 871·3 | 817·5 | 568·6 | ||||
| Hosmer–Lemeshow, P value | 0·21 | 0·45 | 0·20 | ||||
| F-adjusted mean residual goodness-of-fit test, P value | 0·43 | 0·62 | 0·01 | ||||
Ref., referent category.
*
Indicates a P value<0·05.