TABLE 3.

Concise evidence summary of 24 evaluations for 20 unique U.S. beverage media campaigns organized by author, year, campaign name, typology category, and outcomes, 1992–2021

First author's last name, year published, and campaign name	Typology	Short‐term outcomes and cognitive outcomes			Midterm outcomes, behavioral outcomes, and retail outcomes			Long‐term outcomes social norm, policy, and population health outcomes
		Preferences, beliefs, attitudes, awareness, and support of HB policy	HB knowledge	HB intention to consume	HB intake	HB retail sales	Communicated campaign message to another	Social norm	Institutional policy	Population health
Bogart et al. (2019) 51 ; Balance Calories Initiative	2	+	−				+
Cohen et al. (2018) 52 ; Balance Calories Initiative	2					No change
Bonnevie et al. (2020) 63 ; NJ Live Sugarfreed	3	+	+			+
Farley et al. (2017) 64 ; Live Sugarfreed	3	+	+			+
Hinckle et al. (2008) 55 ; Adelante Con Leche Semi‐descremada 1%	3					+
John et al. (2019) 56 ; 1% Low‐Fat Milk has Perks! Choose 1% Milk: A Health Family Choice	3				+	+
Maddock et al. (2007) 57 ; 1% or Less	3	+	+	+	+	+		No change	+
Reger et al. (1998) 58 ; 1% or Less	3	+			+	+
Reger et al. (1999) 59 ; 1% or Less	3				+	+
Reger et al. (2000) 60 ; 1% or Less	3				+	+
Wechsler and Wernick (1992) 61 ; Low‐fat Milk Campaign	3					+			+
Wootan et al. (2005) 62 ; 1% or Less a	3				+	+ and no change
Barragan et al. (2014) 72 ; Choose Health LA Sugar Pack	4		+	+
Bleakley et al. (2018) 73 ; Get Healthy Philly	4	+	+	+
Boehm et al. (2021) 74 ; Howard County Unsweetened	4				+
Boles et al. (2014) 75 ; It Starts Here	4	+	+	+	No change
Caldwell et al. (2020) 76 ; Choose Water	4	+		+			+
Hartigan et al. (2017) 77 ; Rethink Your Drink	4					+
Hornsby et al. (2017) 78 ; Cavities Get Around	4		+		+				+
James et al. (2020) 79 ; Shape Your Future –Rethink Your Drink	4		+		+
Maghrabi et al. (2021) 80 ; Rethink Your Drink	4				+
Robles et al. (2015) 81 ; Choose Health LA Sugar Pack	4	+		+
Samuels et al. (2010) 82 ; Are You Pouring on the Pounds? b	4	+/−	+	+/−	No change
Schwartz et al. (2017) 83 ; Howard County Unsweetened	4				+
Schillinger et al. (2018) 86 ; The Bigger Picture	5	+	+
Total studies that measured outcomes		14			21			3

Note: The evaluations for 20 unique campaigns were implemented over 30 years (1992–2021) across 14 states including Alabama, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. See Table S2 for details for each campaign. The most frequent response categories for short‐, middle‐, and long‐term outcomes are reflected by a slightly darker color (i.e., HB knowledge, HB intake, and institutional policy). Healthy beverage (HB); (+) = positive healthy beverage change (e.g., increased water intake and/or reduced sugary beverage or juice intake) and (−) = negative healthy beverage change.

^a Wootan et al. ⁶² evaluated milk sales in four different communities. Two of the four communities found a positive change in the sale healthier milks promoted, and there was no significant change found in the remaining two communities.

^b Samuels et al. ⁸² did not conduct a baseline assessment, so it is not possible to report changes in the postcampaign evaluation. Some findings were mixed, for example, respondents were in favor of taxation of sugary beverages (e.g., for generating funds) but also reported that taxation may have limited effectiveness to reduce sugary beverage consumption.