Table 2. Summary of Narrative Synthesis Results for SSB Tax Outcomes.

Outcome	No. of studies	Tax policy	Tax jurisdiction/location	Direction and statistical significance of estimated outcome(s)	Primary measures
Meta-analyzed outcomes from studies in narrative analysis only
Prices: tax pass-through	5	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Mexico, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	Increase, no statistical testing (Andalón and Gibson,41 2017; Bonilla-Chacin et al,42 2016; ECSIPC,56 2014; Coary and Baskin,77 2018; Oxford Economics,79 2017)	Price change of taxed beverages
	2	Tiered volume-based excise tax	Portugal and Catalonia, Spain	Increase, no statistical testing (Goiana-da-Silva et al,65 2020; Vall Castelló and Lopez Casasnovas,111 2020)	Price change of taxed beverages
	1	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Colantuoni and Rojas,93 2015). Increase, significant (Colantuoni and Rojas,93 2015)	Price change of taxed beverages (soft drinks)
Sales of taxed beverages	7	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Mexico, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	Decrease, no statistical testing (Andalón and Gibson,41 2017; Bonilla-Chacin et al,42 2016; ECSIPC,56 2014; Pizzutti,71 2019; Oxford Economics79 2017). Decrease, significant (Pedraza et al,44 2018; Baskin and Coary,76 2019)	Change in volume sold of taxed beverages, change in sales for taxed beverages
	2	Tiered volume-based excise tax	Portugal and United Kingdom	Decrease, significant (Goiana-da-Silva et al,65 2020). Decrease, no statistical testing (Public Health England,52 2019)	Change in volume sold of taxed beverages
	1	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Colantuoni and Rojas,93 2015)	Change in volume sold of soft drinks
Sales of substitution beverages	7	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Denmark; Mexico; Saudi Arabia; Berkeley, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	No significant change (Aguilar et al,29 2019; Baskin and Coary,76 2019). No change, no statistical testing (ECSIPC,56 2014; Alsukait et al,66 2020). Increase, significant (Taylor et al,90 2019). Increase, no statistical testing (Pizzutti,71 2019). Mixed results (Pedraza et al,44 2018)	Change in volume sold of untaxed beverages, change in sales for untaxed beverages
	1	Tiered volume-based excise tax	United Kingdom	Increase, no statistical testing (Public Health England,52 2019)	Change in volume sold of taxed beverages
Consumption of taxed beverages	3	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Fletcher et al,94 2015; Fletcher et al,97 2010). Decrease, significant (Fletcher et al,95 2010)	Change in volume consumed (soft drinks)
	1	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Mexico	Decrease, significant (Sánchez-Romero et al,45 2020)	Probability of consumption levels
Consumption, substitution beverages	2	Sales tax	United States	Increase, significant (Fletcher et al,94 2015). Mixed results (Fletcher et al,95 2010)	Change in intake of untaxed beverages
Outcomes not included in meta-analyses, narrative synthesis only
Cross-border shopping	7	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Cook County, Illinois; Oakland, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington	Increase (Cawley et al,70 2019; Seiler et al,73 2019; Powell et al,104 2020). Increase, no statistical testing (Pizzutti,71 2019; Oxford Economics,79 2017). Mixed results (Cawley et al,99 2020). No significant change (Powell and Leider,106 2020)	Increased taxed beverage sales in nearby tax-free areas
Retailer sales revenue	4	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Berkeley, California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	Decrease, significant (Baskin and Coary,76 2019). Mixed results (Roberto et al,72 2019). Increase, no statistical testing (Silver et al,89 2017). Decrease, no statistical testing Oxford Economics,79 2017)	Reduced total sales in taxed jurisdictions
Employment	2	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Mexico and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	No significant change (Guerrero-Lopez et al,43 2017; Lawman et al,78 2019). Decrease, significant (Guerrero-Lopez et al,43 2017)	Unemployment; employment in beverage manufacturing
Other	2	Tiered volume-based excise tax	United Kingdom	No significant change (Law et al,50 2020; Law et al,51 2020)	Turnover (soft drink manufacturing), market return
	1	Single-tier volume-based excise tax	Oakland, California	No significant change (Zenk et al,102 2020)	Store advertising
Product change or reformulation	6	Tiered volume-based excise tax	Portugal and United Kingdom	Decrease, no statistical testing (Chu et al,48 2020; Hashem et al,49 2019; Public Health England,52 2019; Goiana-da-Silva,65 2020). Decrease, significant (Scarborough et al,47 2020)	Sugar content, beverage energy content and density
		Tiered sugar-based excise tax	South Africa	Decrease, no statistical testing (Stacey et al,67 2019)
Body weight	5	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Fletcher et al,94 2015; Fletcher et al,95 2010; Fletcher et al,97 2010; Pak,98 2013). Decrease, significant (Fletcher et al,96 2010)	Body mass index, overweight, obesity
Dietary intake/quality	2	Sales tax	United States	No significant change (Fletcher et al,95 2010). Increase, significant (Fletcher et al,94 2015)	Nutrient intake, total calories

Abbreviations: ECSIPC, European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverages.