Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 27;9(6):e027962. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027962

Table 4.

Multivariable logistic regression analyses with sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge and risk factors as predictors of support for regulatory interventions (consumer warning/educative) aimed at reducing the consumption of sugary drinks

Sociodemographics characteristics Somewhat or strongly in favour (cumulative)
Government-funded TV campaigns on health effects of SSBs Text warning labels on vending machines and other places of sale Text warning labels on SSB advertisements (eg, TV and billboards) Text warning labels on SSB containers about health risks Graphic warning labels on SSB containers about health risks
% OR (95% CI) % OR (95% CI) % OR (95% CI) % OR (95% CI) % OR (95% CI)
Sex
 Male 87 1.00 86 1.00 83 1.00 88 1.00 67 1.00
 Female 88 0.87 (0.70–1.09) 87 0.97 (0.78–1.20) 87 1.17 (0.95–1.43) 89 1.00 (0.80–1.26) 75 1.31 (1.11–1.54)*
Age range (years)
 18–30 90 1.00 85 1.00 84 1.00 86 1.00 64 1.00
 31–45 88 0.91 (0.65–1.26) 85 0.96 (0.72–1.28) 84 0.91 (0.68–1.21) 88 1.05 (0.78–1.43) 67 1.06 (0.85–1.32)
 46–60 88 1.05 (0.75–1.46) 89 1.34 (0.98–1.81) 88 1.25 (0.92–1.68) 89 1.22 (0.89–1.68) 71 1.31 (1.05–1.64)
 61+ 85 0.77 (0.55–1.08) 88 1.27 (0.92–1.75) 84 0.95 (0.71–1.29) 90 1.47 (1.04–2.06) 81 2.48 (1.92–3.20)**
Level of disadvantage
 Decile 1–3 (most disadvantage) 86 1.00 89 1.00 88 1.00 90 1.00 74 1.00
 Decile 4–7 (mid disadvantage) 88 1.08 (0.82–1.44) 86 0.75 (0.56–1.01) 84 0.72 (0.55–0.96) 88 0.76 (0.56–1.03) 71 0.85 (0.68–1.05)
 Decile 8–10 (least disadvantage) 87 0.91 (0.68–1.22) 86 0.71 (0.53–0.96) 84 0.63 (0.48–0.84)* 88 0.74 (0.54–1.01) 70 0.77 (0.61–0.96)
Knowledge and risk factors
 SSB every day causes health problems in adults
  Not likely 79 1.00 83 1.00 79 1.00 85 1.00 61 1.00
  Somewhat/very likely 90 1.48 (1.12–1.97)* 87 1.16 (0.87–1.55) 86 1.28 (0.98–1.68) 89 1.09 (0.80–1.48) 74 1.59 (1.28–1.98)**
 SSB every day causes health problems in children
  Not likely 74 1.00 79 1.00 75 1.00 82 1.00 59 1.00
  Somewhat/very likely 89 2.09 (1.49–2.94)** 87 1.54 (1.08–2.20) 86 1.58 (1.14–2.20)* 89 1.48 (1.02–2.15) 72 1.33 (1.00–1.76)
 Sugary drink consumption per week
  None 88 1.00 89 1.00 87 1.00 91 1.00 76 1.00
  1–6 times 90 1.04 (0.81–1.35) 85 0.79 (0.63–1.01) 85 0.87 (0.70–1.10) 86 0.67 (0.53–0.86)* 68 0.81 (0.68–0.97)
  7+ times 78 0.53 (0.39–0.71)** 80 0.59 (0.44–0.80)* 78 0.60 (0.45–0.79)** 82 0.52 (0.38–0.70)** 60 0.62 (0.49–0.79)**
 BMI
  ≤25 90 1.00 88 1.00 85 1.00 88 1.00 72 1.00
  >25 85 0.63 (0.50–0.79)** 87 0.94 (0.76–1.17) 85 1.05 (0.85–1.29) 89 1.03 (0.82–1.30) 70 0.86 (0.73–1.01)
  Don’t know 87 0.79 (0.44–1.42) 73 0.47 (0.30–0.75)* 77 0.73 (0.45–1.19) 82 0.72 (0.43–1.21) 70 0.93 (0.60–1.44)

Note: % is the percentage of respondents (unadjusted for SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage. other variables) from each category reporting they were in favour of the policy initiative. Employment and education were not significantly associated with any policy initiative in this table and were not reported in the table for ease of interpretation. Missing data resulted in 3.9%–4.2% of cases excluded from any one analysis. OR is the Odds Ratio adjusted for all other sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge and risk factors. Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit values indicated good support for all models.

Statistical significance is denoted by asterisk(s) according to the following levels: *p<0.01, **p<0.001.

BMI, body mass index; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage.