Table 4.
Odds of finding any sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption or pro-SSB tax message convincing: a US Mid-Atlantic state registered voter sample (n 1000), February 2013
| Panel A: convinced by any SSB consumption message (n 500) | Panel B: convinced by any pro-SSB tax message (n 500) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | n | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI | n | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| 18–34 v. ≥35 | 486 | 3·27 | 0·43, 25·0 | 494 | 2·17 | 0·77, 6·09 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male v. female | 486 | 0·34* | 0·13, 0·91 | 494 | 1·97 | 0·95, 4·09 |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||
| White | 310 | Ref. | 325 | Ref. | ||
| African American/Black | 101 | 3·48 | 0·93, 13·1 | 99 | 1·60 | 0·63, 4·05 |
| Other | 50 | 1·34 | 0·23, 7·72 | 44 | 1·18 | 0·40, 3·47 |
| Political party | ||||||
| Democrat | 273 | Ref. | 276 | Ref. | ||
| Republican | 133 | 3·58 | 0·93, 13·82 | 129 | 0·80 | 0·30, 2·13 |
| Independent or other | 80 | 18·3* | 1·45, 230·9 | 89 | 0·63 | 0·26, 1·52 |
| Education | ||||||
| High school or less | 121 | Ref. | 128 | Ref. | ||
| Some college/associate’s degree | 121 | 0·86 | 0·27, 2·72 | 107 | 0·72 | 0·29, 1·83 |
| 4-year college/bachelor’s degree | 116 | 3·00 | 0·36, 25·0 | 138 | 1·03 | 0·37, 2·84 |
| Postgraduate | 110 | 1·41 | 0·33, 6·1 | 103 | 1·11 | 0·36, 3·49 |
| Income, annual before taxes | ||||||
| ≥$US 100 000 | 102 | Ref. | 122 | Ref. | ||
| $US 50 000–<100 000 | 136 | 0·25* | 0·06, 0·99 | 134 | 0·79 | 0·34, 1·84 |
| <$US 50 000 | 91 | 0·49 | 0·09, 2·59 | 94 | 1·12 | 0·40, 3·13 |
| Daily SSB consumption | ||||||
| Yes v. no | 486 | 1·33 | 0·44, 4·07 | 494 | 0·69 | 0·32, 1·48 |
| SSB at home | ||||||
| Yes v. no | 486 | 0·54 | 0·19, 1·53 | 494 | 0·99 | 0·51, 1·95 |
| Health-care provider suggested weight loss | ||||||
| Yes v. no | 467 | 1·11 | 0·42, 2·92 | 476 | 0·51* | 0·26, 0·99 |
| SSB are habit forming or addictive | ||||||
| Neither | 80 | Ref. | 75 | Ref. | ||
| Addictive | 292 | 1·69 | 0·56, 5·12 | 291 | 1·99 | 0·71, 5·60 |
| Habit forming | 95 | 2·71 | 0·54, 13·5 | 102 | 1·49 | 0·50, 4·50 |
| Belief that SSB tax will be effective | ||||||
| Yes v. no | 457 | 3·98 | 0·84, 18·8 | 465 | 6·21* | 2·95, 13·1 |
| Belief in SSB and obesity relationship in children | ||||||
| No, do not contribute | 49 | Ref. | 52 | Ref. | ||
| Yes, only minor cause | 170 | 1·09 | 0·23, 5·15 | 163 | 1·01 | 0·35, 2·96 |
| Yes, major cause | 236 | 0·96 | 0·16, 5·59 | 240 | 0·92 | 0·31, 2·72 |
| Motivation among SSB drinkers to reduce consumption after health expert links SSB with obesity | ||||||
| Yes v. no | 420 | 3·13* | 1·29, 7·56 | 404 | 1·99 | 0·91, 4·39 |
| Childhood obesity concern | ||||||
| Yes v. no | 486 | 4·50* | 1·62, 12·53 | 494 | 1·38 | 0·91, 4·39 |
| Childhood obesity solution | ||||||
| Societal concern v. parental concern | 466 | 1·39 | 0·33, 5·85 | 475 | 1·80 | 0·88, 3·71 |
| Model fit statistics | ||||||
| Akaike’s Information Criterion | 178·3 | 299·1 | ||||
| Hosmer–Lemeshow, P value | 0·31 | 0·47 | ||||
| F-adjusted mean residual goodness-of-fit test, P value | 0·00 | 0·09 | ||||
Ref., referent category.
*
Indicates a P value <0·05.