Table 5.
Multivariable logistic regression analyses with sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge and risk factors, as predictors of support for selected regulatory interventions (marketing, sales and taxation) aimed at reducing the consumption of sugary drinks
| Sociodemographic characteristics | Somewhat or strongly in favour (cumulative) | |||||||||
| Bans on SSB advertising during children’s TV viewing times | Bans on SSB marketing on digital platforms popular with children | Bans on sales of SSBs at schools | Government tax on drinks high in added sugar to fund obesity prevention | Government tax on drinks high in added sugar | ||||||
| % | OR (95% CI) | % | OR (95% CI) | % | OR (95% CI) | % | OR (95% CI) | % | OR (95% CI) | |
| Sex | ||||||||||
| Male | 75 | 1.00 | 73 | 1.00 | 69 | 1.00 | 77 | 1.00 | 58 | 1.00 |
| Female | 85 | 1.70 (1.41–2.05)** | 82 | 1.49 (1.24–1.78)** | 82 | 1.70 (1.43–2.03)** | 81 | 1.11 (0.92–1.33) | 64 | 1.02 (0.87–1.19) |
| Age range (years) | ||||||||||
| 18–30 | 76 | 1.00 | 70 | 1.00 | 64 | 1.00 | 83 | 1.00 | 57 | 1.00 |
| 31–45 | 81 | 1.14 (0.88–1.47) | 80 | 1.46 (1.14–1.86)* | 80 | 2.14 (1.68–2.72)** | 80 | 0.74 (0.56–0.97) | 64 | 1.25 (1.01–1.56) |
| 46–60 | 81 | 1.24 (0.96–1.60) | 81 | 1.76 (1.37–2.26)** | 79 | 2.08 (1.63–2.65)** | 76 | 0.58 (0.45–0.76)** | 61 | 1.14 (0.92–1.42) |
| 61+ | 82 | 1.51 (1.15–1.99)* | 79 | 1.81 (1.40–2.35)** | 79 | 2.35 (1.82–3.05)** | 77 | 0.64 (0.48–0.85)* | 63 | 1.35 (1.03–1.71) |
| Level of education | ||||||||||
| Secondary school or less | 75 | 1.00 | 72 | 1.00 | 72 | 1.00 | 75 | 1.00 | 55 | 1.00 |
| Some tertiary/completed vocational training | 79 | 1.30 (1.05–1.62) | 77 | 1.30 (1.05–1.60) | 77 | 1.37 (1.11–1.70)* | 79 | 1.32 (1.06–1.64) | 58 | 1.15 (0.95–1.38) |
| Finished university (bachelor degree or higher) |
84 | 1.62 (1.29–2.04)** | 82 | 1.63 (1.31–2.04)** | 77 | 1.11 (0.89–1.38) | 82 | 1.37 (1.09–1.72)* | 70 | 1.73 (1.43–2.11)** |
| Knowledge and risk factors | ||||||||||
| SSB every day causes health problems in adults | ||||||||||
| Not likely | 74 | 1.00 | 70 | 1.00 | 63 | 1.00 | 66 | 1.00 | 47 | 1.00 |
| Somewhat/very likely | 81 | 0.98 (0.76–1.26) | 79 | 1.28 (1.02–1.62) | 79 | 1.43 (1.14–1.81)* | 82 | 1.50 (1.18–1.89)* | 65 | 1.50 (1.22–1.85)** |
| SSB every day causes health problems in children | ||||||||||
| Not likely | 64 | 1.00 | 63 | 1.00 | 52 | 1.00 | 58 | 1.00 | 41 | 1.00 |
| Somewhat/very likely | 82 | 2.16 (1.60–2.93)** | 79 | 1.70 (1.26–2.28)** | 78 | 2.47 (1.85– 3.28)** | 81 | 2.05 (1.54–2.75)** | 64 | 1.86 (1.41–2.45)** |
| Sugary drink consumption per week | ||||||||||
| None | 82 | 1.00 | 80 | 1.00 | 80 | 1.00 | 81 | 1.00 | 69 | 1.00 |
| 1–6 times | 80 | 1.03 (0.84–1.26) | 78 | 1.08 (0.88–1.31) | 74 | 0.87 (0.72–1.06) | 81 | 0.92 (0.75–1.13) | 59 | 0.68 (0.57–0.80)** |
| 7+times | 71 | 0.72 (0.56–0.94) | 66 | 0.68 (0.53–0.87)* | 62 | 0.57 (0.44–0.73)** | 64 | 0.45 (0.35–0.58)** | 40 | 0.38 (0.30–0.47)** |
| BMI | ||||||||||
| ≤25 | 80 | 1.00 | 77 | 1.00 | 76 | 1.00 | 81 | 1.00 | 65 | 1.00 |
| >25 | 80 | 1.05 (0.87–1.27) | 79 | 1.09 (0.91–1.30) | 76 | 0.95 (0.79–1.13) | 77 | 0.96 (0.80–1.16) | 59 | 0.82 (0.70–0.96) |
| Don’t know | 67 | 0.57 (0.37–0.87) | 65 | 0.59 (0.38–0.89) | 66 | 0.57 (0.37–0.87)* | 71 | 0.75 (0.48–1.19) | 58 | 0.85 (0.57–1.27) |
Note: % is the percentage of respondents (unadjusted for other variables) from each category reporting they were in favour of the policy initiative. Level of disadvantage and employment were not significantly associated with any policy initiatives in this table and were not reported in the table for ease of interpretation. Missing data resulted in 3.8%–4.5% of cases excluded from any one analysis. OR is 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.