Abstract
Frequent intake of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with adverse health outcomes such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Little is known about when, where, and why U.S. adults consume SSBs. This study, using data from an online survey distributed in 2021, examined the occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs and the characteristics of the adults who consume them. Nearly 7 of 10 adults reported consuming a SSB (1–6 times) in the past 7 days, and more than a third (38%) reported doing so once or more per day (on average). For comparative purposes, the sample was limited to adults who reported consuming SSBs within the last 7 days. Mealtimes were reported as the most frequent occasion for the intake of SSBs (43%) and SSBs were most often consumed at home (70%). Over half of respondents (56%) reported they consume SSBs because they enjoy the taste. Younger adults (18–34 years old) were more likely to consume SSBs in social settings than older adults (≥50 years old). Hispanic adults were less likely to consume SSBs at the beginning of the day compared to non-Hispanic White adults. Younger (18–34 years old) and middle-aged (35–49 years old) adults were more likely to consume SSBs in restaurants, at work, and in cars than older adults (≥50 years old). Women were less likely to consume SSBs at work than men. Hispanic adults were less likely to consume SSBs in cars than non-Hispanic White adults, while those earning USD 50,000–<USD 100,000 were more likely to consume SSBs in cars than those earning ≥USD 100,000. Younger and middle-aged adults were more likely to consume SSBs due to cravings and enjoyment of the carbonation compared to older adults. These findings provide insights on specific populations for whom to tailor messaging and adapt interventions to help reduce SSB intake.
Keywords: sugar-sweetened beverage, adult, dietary intake, food choice
1. Introduction
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are the largest sources of added sugars in the U.S. adult diet and include carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, fruit drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, sweetened water, and sweetened coffee/tea drinks that contain added sugars [1]. Excess intake of SSBs is associated with adverse health outcomes such as weight gain and the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and related risk factors [2,3,4,5]. While the consumption of SSBs has decreased over the past decades, SSB intake among U.S. adults remains high [6]. A study reported that 63% of U.S. adults drank SSBs at least once per day in 2010 and 2015 [7]. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data between 2011 and 2014 showed that U.S. adults consumed an average of 145 kcal/day of SSBs, corresponding to 6.5% of the total calories with higher intake levels reported among younger age groups and among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic men and women [8]. There is an abundant body of evidence regarding the high prevalence of SSB intake and sociodemographic characteristics associated with SSB intake among U.S. adults [6,9,10]. However, little is known about when, where, and why individuals consume SSBs with reference to a national data set. While several studies examined eating occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs, they only included limited response options, were based on older data, and/or had small sample sizes [11,12,13,14,15]. Understanding defined eating occasions, locations, and reasons that influence SSB intake could aid the design of future communication campaigns to decrease SSB intake among U.S. adults. Therefore, the purposes of our study were to describe the eating occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs among U.S. adults and to explore associations between the outcome variables (i.e., eating occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs) and sociodemographic and other characteristics among SSB consumers.
2. Methods
2.1. Sample and Survey Administration
A cross-sectional study was conducted using the Ipsos G&A Omnibus Survey 2021, a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, via KnowledgePanel®, an online research panel [16]. KnowledgePanel’s recruitment process employs an address-based sampling methodology employing the latest Delivery Sequence Files of the USPS, which is a database with full coverage of all delivery points in the US. Households invited to join the panel were randomly selected from all available households in the US, and persons in the sampled households were invited to join and participate in the panel. A tablet and internet connection were provided (if needed). Participants received unique password-protected log-in information used to complete online surveys. In 2021, the Omnibus survey was sent to 1750 adults on the panel and 1013 adults completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 58%. For subset analyses that explored the occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs, we limited samples to adults who reported consuming any SSBs during the past 7 days (n = 658). All sampled adults received an invitational message from Ipsos with a link to an IRB-approved study information sheet. Those who consented to participate could then proceed to the online survey.
2.2. Measures
Outcome variables defined in this study were occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs on a typical day. Regarding the occasions of SSB intake, we asked the following question: “When do you drink sugary drinks? Check all that apply.” There were 10 responses: (1) at the beginning of the day, (2) at mealtime, (3) between meals/when snacking, (4) at the end of the day, (5) during or after exercising or being physically active, (6) when commuting, (7) for a special event or celebration, (8) for a special meal with family or friends, (9) in social settings/when others are drinking these drinks, and (10) none of the above.
Regarding the locations of SSB intake, we asked the following question: “Where do you drink sugary drinks? Check all that apply.” There were 6 responses: (1) at home; (2) at restaurants/bars; (3) in the car; (4) at work; (5) in parks, gyms, or other recreation areas; and (6) none of the above.
With regard to the reasons for SSB intake, we asked the following question: “Which of the following are reasons why you drink sugary drinks? Check all that apply.” There were 14 responses preceded by the prompt, “I drink sugary drinks because…”: (1) I enjoy the taste, (2) they make me feel happy, (3) they give me energy, (4) they make my meal better, (5) they are an alternative to a food snack, (6) they satisfy my thirst, (7) they are a habit/part of my routine, (8) they are easy to carry/transport, (9) they are convenient to drink, (10) they are easy to find/buy, (11) I like the carbonation/fizz/bubbles, (12) they are inexpensive/affordable, (13) they satisfy my cravings for something sweet, and (14) none of the above.
SSB intake was determined by the following five questions: (1) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you drink REGULAR SODA or POP? These are drinks that contain added sugars, such as Coke, Pepsi, or Sprite.”; (2) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you drink SPORTS or ENERGY DRINKS? These are drinks that contain added sugars such as Gatorade, Red Bull, Monster, and Vitamin Water.”; (3) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you drink SWEETENED FRUIT DRINKS? These are drinks that contain added sugars such as Kool-Aid, fruit punch, cranberry, and lemonade. Include fruit drinks you made at home and added sugars to such as homemade lemonade.”; (4) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you drink SWEETENED COFFEE or TEA? These include drinks that are served hot or cold and drinks that are purchased in cups, cans, or bottles. They include presweetened tea and coffee drinks such as Arizona Iced Tea and Starbucks Frappuccino. These drinks also include coffee and tea drinks you sweetened yourself by adding sugar or honey.”; and (5) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you have a DRINK WITH A SWEETENED MIXER? These include drinks sweetened with mixers such as regular soda or pop, energy drinks, tonic water, simple syrup, or sweetened fruit drinks like cranberry juice cocktail.” The response options for each question were none, 1–3 times/week, 4–6 times/week, 1 time/day, 2 times/day, 3 times/day, and ≥4 times/day. To estimate weekly intake, 1–3 times/week was converted to 2 times/week, 4–6 times/week was converted to 5 times/week, and ≥4 times/day was converted to 4 times/week. To calculate the total frequency of daily SSB intake, we added the responses from five SSB questions.
Sociodemographic variables assessed included age (18–34 years old, 35–49 years old, and ≥50 years old), gender, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic (NH) Black, Hispanic, NH other, and NH White), education level (≤high school, some college, and college graduate), annual household income (<USD 25,000, USD 35,000–USD 74,999, USD 75,000–USD 99,999, or ≥USD 100,000), and marital status (married/domestic partnership and not married). Not married comprised widowed, divorced, separated, or never married. Other covariates included weight status, census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, or West) [17], having children aged < 18 years in the household (yes or no), and self-identified urbanicity (urban, rural, or suburb). BMI was calculated using self-reported weight and height data, and weight status was grouped into underweight/healthy weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25–<30 kg/m2), or obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) [18].
2.3. Statistical Analyses
For unadjusted bivariate analyses, descriptive statistics were used to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with SSB intake as well as occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs using chi-square tests. In this study, p value < 0.05 is considered as statistically significant. For adjusted analyses, we used a total of 12 multivariate logistic regression models to calculate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) for sociodemographic characteristics associated with four most frequent responses according to occasions, locations, and reasons. Each model included all sociodemographic characteristics. We used survey procedures to account for sampling weights and sampling design using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
3. Results
Nearly 7 of 10 of the surveyed adults reported consuming any SSB (1–6 times) in the past 7 days, and 38% reported doing so at least 7 times during the past 7 days (on average 1 or more times per day). The prevalence of SSB intake more than seven times per week was the highest among adults aged 35–49 years old, NH Black and Hispanic adults, those with ≤high school education, those with the lowest household income (<USD 25,000/year), and with children (<18 years old) in the household (p < 0.05 based on χ2 tests) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Characteristics of survey respondents and their associations with sugar-sweetened beverage intake during the past 7 days among U.S. adults (Omnibus Survey 2021).
| Characteristics | All Participants | Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake (% ± Standard Error) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 0 Times/Day | 1–6 Times in the Past Week | 7 or More Times in the Past Week | p Value * | |
| Total (N = 1013) | 100 | 31.4 ± 1.5 | 31.2 ± 1.6 | 37.5 ± 1.6 | |
| Age | |||||
| 18–34 years | 27.0 | 23.2 ± 3.1 | 36.6 ± 3.6 | 40.1 ± 3.7 | 0.0002 |
| 35–49 years | 22.9 | 25.1 ± 3.0 | 31.2 ± 3.3 | 43.7 ± 3.5 | |
| ≥50 years | 50.1 | 38.7 ± 2.0 | 28.2 ± 1.9 | 33.2 ± 2.0 | |
| Gender | |||||
| Men | 48.4 | 30.6 ± 2.1 | 29.9 ± 2.2 | 39.5 ± 2.3 | 0.44 |
| Women | 51.6 | 32.2 ± 2.1 | 32.3 ± 2.2 | 35.5 ± 2.3 | |
| Race/Ethnicity | |||||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 11.7 | 31.4 ± 5.1 | 23.3 ± 4.5 | 45.3 ± 5.4 | <0.0001 |
| Hispanic, non-Hispanic | 16.5 | 14.1 ± 3.3 | 40.4 ± 4.8 | 45.6 ± 4.8 | |
| Other/multiracial, non-Hispanic | 8.7 | 28.7 ± 5.2 | 39.1 ± 5.6 | 32.1 ± 5.5 | |
| White, non-Hispanic | 63.1 | 36.3 ± 1.8 | 29.1 ± 1.8 | 34.6 ± 1.9 | |
| Education | |||||
| ≤High school | 38.6 | 27.6 ± 2.5 | 27.4 ± 2.6 | 45.1 ± 2.8 | 0.001 |
| Some college | 30.1 | 29.4 ± 2.7 | 34.1 ± 2.9 | 36.5 ± 3.0 | |
| College graduate | 31.4 | 38.0 ± 2.6 | 33.0 ± 2.6 | 29.0 ± 2.5 | |
| Annual household income | |||||
| <USD 25,000 | 12.5 | 28.8 ± 4.6 | 21.7 ± 4.2 | 49.5 ± 5.4 | <0.0001 |
| USD 25,000–<USD 50,000 | 17.5 | 24.7 ± 3.2 | 28.1 ± 3.5 | 47.1 ± 3.8 | |
| USD 50,000–<USD 100,000 | 31.5 | 27.1 ± 2.6 | 31.6 ± 2.9 | 41.3 ± 3.0 | |
| ≥USD 100,000 | 38.5 | 38.8 ± 2.5 | 35.3 ± 2.5 | 26.0 ± 2.2 | |
| Marital status | |||||
| Not married | 41.0 | 29.2 ± 2.5 | 29.9 ± 2.6 | 41.0 ± 2.8 | 0.20 |
| Married | 59.0 | 33.0 ± 1.9 | 32.0 ± 1.9 | 35.0 ± 2.0 | |
| Weight status a (n = 933) | |||||
| Underweight/healthy weight | 33.4 | 32.5 ± 2.8 | 30.0 ± 2.9 | 37.5 ± 3.0 | 0.38 |
| Overweight | 31.8 | 36.1 ± 2.8 | 30.5 ± 2.8 | 33.4 ± 2.8 | |
| Obesity | 34.8 | 28.7 ± 2.6 | 34.3 ± 2.8 | 37.0 ± 2.9 | |
| Census region | |||||
| Northeast | 17.2 | 26.7 ± 3.4 | 32.7 ± 3.7 | 40.7 ± 4.0 | 0.31 |
| Midwest | 20.7 | 36.0 ± 3.4 | 24.5 ± 3.1 | 39.4 ± 3.5 | |
| South | 38.2 | 31.6 ± 2.5 | 32.0 ± 2.6 | 36.3 ± 2.7 | |
| West | 24.0 | 30.4 ± 3.1 | 34.3 ± 3.4 | 35.2 ± 3.3 | |
| Children present (<18 years old) in household | |||||
| No | 69.9 | 34.9 ± 1.8 | 30.8 ± 1.8 | 34.4 ± 1.9 | 0.002 |
| Yes | 30.1 | 23.3 ± 2.6 | 32.0 ± 3.0 | 44.7 ± 3.2 | |
| Urbanicity (n = 1011) | 0.66 | ||||
| Urban | 31.5 | 31.8 ± 2.7 | 29.5 ± 2.7 | 38.7 ± 2.9 | |
| Rural | 19.0 | 35.4 ± 3.5 | 30.8 ± 3.4 | 33.8 ± 3.5 | |
| Suburb | 49.5 | 29.8 ± 2.1 | 31.9 ± 2.3 | 38.3 ± 2.4 | |
* Based on chi-squares tests across categories. a Weight status was based on calculated body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2): underweight/healthy weight, BMI < 25; overweight, BMI 25–<30; obesity, BMI ≥ 30.
Overall, occasions for which SSBs were consumed on a typical day were highest at mealtime (43%), followed by between meals/when snacking (29%), in social settings/when others are drinking SSBs (26%), at the beginning of the day (20%), at special events/celebrations (17%), at special meals with family or friends (17%), at the end of the day (16%), and when commuting (12%). The locations where SSBs were consumed most were at home (70%), followed by restaurants/bars (40%), work (24%), and in the car (23%). The most common reasons for drinking SSBs were enjoying the taste (56%), satisfying cravings for something sweet (28%), liking the carbonation (21%), and satisfying thirst (20%) (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
(A) Occasions, (B) locations, and (C) reasons for consuming sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) among U.S. adults who reported consuming SSBs during the past 7 days (n = 658) (Omnibus Survey, 2021).
Of those who reported consuming SSBs during the past 7 days (n = 658), the prevalence of the top four occasions, locations, and reasons for SSB intake significantly varied by certain characteristics. In unadjusted bivariate analysis of the top four occasions for drinking SSBs (i.e., at mealtime, between meals/snacking, in social settings, and at the beginning of the day), significant differences were observed according to age, marital status, and weight status regarding the consumption of SSBs in a social setting and according to race/ethnicity concerning consumption at the beginning of the day (Table 2). Based on multivariable logistic regression analysis, younger adults had higher odds of consuming SSBs in social settings (18–34 years old, AOR:2.1, and 95% CI: 1.2–3.6) than older adults (≥50 years old); Hispanic adults had lower odds of consuming SSBs between meals/snacking (AOR:0.4; 95% CI: 0.2–0.9) or at the beginning of the day (AOR:0.3; 95% CI: 0.1–0.6) than NH White adults (Table 2).
Table 2.
Unadjusted (bivariate analysis) and adjusted (multivariate analysis) relationship between top four eating occasions when sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) were consumed according to sociodemographic variables among U.S. adult SSB consumers—Omnibus Survey, 2021.
| Characteristics | Eating Occasions When SSBs Were Consumed | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bivariate Analysis Prevalence (%) |
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) |
|||||||
| At Mealtime | Between Meals/Snacking | Social Settings | Beginning of the Day | At Mealtime | Between Meals/Snacking | Social Settings | Beginning of the Day | |
| Age | ||||||||
| 18–34 years old | 44.5 | 31.7 | 33.8 * | 20.3 | 1. 2 (0.7, 1.9) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.1) | 2.1 (1.2, 3.6) | 1.1 (0.6, 1.9) |
| 35–49 years old | 47.3 | 29.8 | 27.8 * | 25.3 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.3) | 1.8 (1.0, 3.2) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.8) |
| ≥50 years old | 39.5 | 25.8 | 18.7 * | 16.7 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Men | 44.1 | 30.6 | 22.4 | 18.9 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Women | 41.8 | 26.6 | 28.7 | 21.0 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) |
| Race/Ethnicity | ||||||||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 40.0 | 39.4 | 27.0 | 12.0 * | 1.0 (0.6, 1.9) | 1.7 (0.9, 3.1) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.6) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.1) |
| Hispanic | 50.1 | 20.2 | 24.4 | 9.5 * | 1.3 (0.8, 2.3) | 0.4 (0.2, 0.9) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.8) | 0.3 (0.1, 0.6) |
| Other/multiracial, non-Hispanic | 39.0 | 25.6 | 27.2 | 20.4 * | 0.8 (0.4, 1.6) | 0.9 (0.4, 2.0) | 0.9 (0.4, 1.8) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.4) |
| White non-Hispanic | 41.7 | 29.8 | 25.5 | 25.2 * | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Education | ||||||||
| ≤High school | 44.8 | 33.4 | 25.2 | 19.9 | 1.2 (0.7, 1.9) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.7) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.2) |
| Some college | 47.0 | 27.5 | 25.0 | 19.8 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 1.1 (0.6, 1.8) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.1) |
| College graduate | 35.8 | 22.9 | 26.8 | 20.2 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Annual household income | ||||||||
| <USD 25,000 | 41.7 | 31.6 | 26.4 | 23.3 | 1.2 (0.6, 2.4) | 1.1 (0.5, 2.5) | 1.3 (0.6, 2.7) | 1.3 (0.5, 3.0) |
| USD 25,000–<USD 50,000 | 46.1 | 31.2 | 21.9 | 18.2 | 1.2 (0.7, 2.1) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.4) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.6) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.4) |
| USD 50,000–<USD 100,000 | 43.9 | 29.7 | 29.0 | 19.6 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.2) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.3) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.5) |
| ≥USD 100,000 | 40.8 | 24.9 | 23.9 | 20.1 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Not married | 44.2 | 32.2 | 30.4 * | 21.0 | 1.1 (0.8, 1.7) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.3) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) |
| Married | 42.0 | 26.0 | 22.1 * | 19.2 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Weight status a (n = 602) | ||||||||
| Underweight/healthy weight | 39.1 | 26 | 26.8 * | 22.7 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Overweight | 47.6 | 28.3 | 15.9 * | 18.7 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.9) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.1) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) |
| Obesity | 42.9 | 30.6 | 31.3 * | 19.3 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.5) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) |
| Census region | ||||||||
| Northeast | 42.4 | 23.7 | 31.2 | 16 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.2) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.2) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.6) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.5) |
| Midwest | 42.6 | 28.5 | 27.8 | 27.2 | 1.2 (0.7, 1.9) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.1) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.4) |
| South | 41.2 | 33.0 | 22.3 | 19.1 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| West | 46.4 | 25.6 | 24.7 | 18.7 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.9) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.5) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.2) |
| Having children (<18 years old) in household | ||||||||
| No | 40.7 | 28.2 | 24.1 | 19.2 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Yes | 47.3 | 29.4 | 28.6 | 21.4 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.5) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.7) | 1.1 (0.6, 1.8) |
| Urbanicity | ||||||||
| Urban | 41.7 | 27.6 | 28.4 | 19.5 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Rural | 40.2 | 28.2 | 19.6 | 20.2 | 1.0 (0.6, 1.7) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.3) | 0.5 (0.3, 1.0) | 1.7 (0.4, 1.4) |
| Suburban | 44.5 | 29.6 | 25.6 | 20.4 | 1.1 (0.8, 1.7) | 1.6 (1.0, 2.6) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.5) |
* p < 0.05 across categories based on chi-squares tests. a Weight status was based on calculated body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2): underweight/healthy weight, BMI < 25; overweight, BMI 25–<30; obesity, BMI ≥ 30.
In an unadjusted bivariate analysis of the top four locations in which SSBs were consumed (i.e., home, restaurant, work, and car), significant differences were present according to age concerning the consumption of SSBs in restaurants; according to age, gender, and having children in the household with respect to the consumption of SSBs at work; and according to age, race/ethnicity, annual household income, and having children in the household with regard to the consumption of SSBs in a car (Table 3). Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, younger (18–34 years old) and middle-aged adults (35–49 years old) had higher odds of consuming SSBs in restaurants (AOR:1.9, 95% CI: 1.2–3.2; AOR:2.3, and 95% CI: 1.4–3.7, respectively), at work (AOR: 2.9 and 95% CI: 1.6–5.2; AOR:2.7 and 95% CI: 1.5–4.9), and in cars (AOR:2.0 and 95% CI: 1.1–3.7; AOR:3.1 and 95% CI: 1.7–5.6) than older adults (≥50 years old). Women were less likely to consume SSBs at work (AOR:0.6 and 95% CI: 0.4–0.9) than men. Hispanic adults were less likely to consume SSBs in cars (AOR:0.3 and 95% CI: 0.1–0.6) than NH White adults, while those earning USD 50,000–<USD 100,000 were more likely to consume SSBs in cars (AOR:2.3 and 95% CI: 1.4–4.1) than those earning ≥USD 100,000 (Table 3).
Table 3.
Unadjusted (bivariate analysis) and adjusted (multivariate analysis) relationship between top four locations where sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are consumed according to sociodemographic variables among U.S. adult SSB consumers—Omnibus Survey, 2021.
| Characteristics | Locations Where SSBs Are Consumed | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bivariate Analysis Prevalence (%) |
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) |
|||||||
| Home | Restaurant | Work | Car | Home | Restaurant | Work | Car | |
| Age | ||||||||
| 18–34 years old | 68.2 | 44.9 * | 30.2 * | 26.8 * | 0.9 (0.6, 1.5) | 1.9 (1.2, 3.2) | 2.9 (1.6, 5.2) | 2.0 (1.1, 3.7) |
| 35–49 years old | 74.1 | 47.9 * | 31.7 * | 33.5 * | 1.5 (0.9, 2.5) | 2.3 (1.4, 3.7) | 2.7 (1.5, 4.9) | 3.1 (1.7, 5.6) |
| ≥50 years old | 70.2 | 31.3 * | 14.2 * | 14.5 * | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Men | 72.9 | 39.1 | 27.9 * | 24.3 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Women | 68.3 | 40.0 | 19.2 * | 21.8 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) | 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) |
| Race/Ethnicity | ||||||||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 75.1 | 31.5 | 21.5 | 24.8 * | 1.2 (0.6, 2.4) | 0.5 (0.3, 1.0) | 1.0 (0.5, 2.0) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.9) |
| Hispanic | 65.7 | 42.7 | 23.4 | 12.9 * | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.2) | 0.9 (0.4, 1.7) | 0.3 (0.1, 0.6) |
| Other/multiracial, non-Hispanic | 66.1 | 38.9 | 23.4 | 19.2 * | 0.8 (0.4, 1.6) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.8) | 1.1 (0.5, 2.3) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.3) |
| White, non-Hispanic | 72.0 | 40.2 | 23.9 | 26.8 * | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Education | ||||||||
| ≤High school | 74.6 | 39.0 | 24.6 | 24.7 | 1.1 (0.6, 1.8) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.3) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.2) |
| Some college | 66.9 | 41.7 | 24.3 | 24.5 | 0.7 (0.4, 1.2) | 1.2 (0.7, 1.9) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.3) | 1.4 (0.7, 2.5) |
| College graduate | 68.7 | 38.2 | 21.0 | 19.1 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Annual household income | ||||||||
| <USD 25,000 | 71.7 | 35.4 | 17.8 | 27.8 * | 1.2 (0.5, 2.7) | 0.9 (0.4, 1.8) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.3) | 1.6 (0.7, 3.9) |
| USD 25,000–<USD 50,000 | 75.3 | 36.8 | 25.5 | 16.4 * | 1.4 (0.8, 2.6) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.8) | 1.0 (0.5, 2.0) | 0.9 (0.4, 1.8) |
| USD 50,000–<USD 100,000 | 67.9 | 44.0 | 24.3 | 30.3 * | 1.1 (0.9, 2.2) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) | 2.3 (1.4, 4.1) |
| ≥USD 100,000 | 70.1 | 38.4 | 23.7 | 17.8 * | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Not married | 72.8 | 40.9 | 24.3 | 25.5 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 1.1 (0.6, 1.8) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.4) |
| Married | 68.9 | 38.7 | 22.9 | 21.3 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Weight status a (n = 602) | ||||||||
| Underweight/healthy weight | 67.4 | 36.1 | 19.4 | 21.4 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Overweight | 72.4 | 36.3 | 24.8 | 18.4 | 1.2 (0.7, 1.9) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) | 1.5 (0.8, 2.6) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.7) |
| Obesity | 70.3 | 44.5 | 25.3 | 26.9 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) | 1.6 (1.0, 2.6) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.8) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.8) |
| Census region | ||||||||
| Northeast | 70.4 | 43.7 | 23.3 | 25.3 | 0.9 (0.5, 1.5) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.2) | 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.2) |
| Midwest | 73.3 | 45.6 | 28.0 | 25.1 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.9) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.0) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.1) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.5) |
| South | 71.7 | 37.0 | 24.2 | 21.9 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| West | 66.7 | 35.7 | 18.9 | 21.4 | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.1) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.1) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.2) |
| Having children (<18 years old) in household | ||||||||
| No | 72.2 | 36.9 | 19.8 * | 19.0 * | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Yes | 67.3 | 45.0 | 30.8 * | 31.0 * | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.5) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.2) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.3) |
| Urbanicity (n = 656) | ||||||||
| Urban | 68.7 | 37.6 | 25.4 | 20.4 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Rural | 67.0 | 36.6 | 20.3 | 23.6 | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.3) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.3) | 1.0 (0.5, 2.0) |
| Suburban | 73.3 | 41.7 | 23.6 | 24.7 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.4) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.3) |
* p < 0.05 across categories based on chi-squares tests. a Weight status was based on calculated body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2): underweight/healthy weight, BMI < 25; overweight, BMI 25–<30; obesity, BMI ≥ 30.
In an unadjusted bivariate analysis, of the top four reasons (i.e., taste, craving, fizz, and thirst) for consuming SSBs, significant differences existed according to annual household income with respect to the consumption of SSBs because of taste, and according to age with respect to the consumption of SSBs because of craving or fizz (Table 4). Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, younger adults and middle-aged adults had almost three times higher odds of consuming SSBs due to cravings (AOR:2.8, 95% CI: 1.7–4.8; AOR:2.8, 95% CI: 1.7–4.9) or because they like the fizz/bubble (AOR:2.4, 95% CI: 1.4–4.1; AOR:2.1, 95% CI: 1.2–3.7) than older adults (Table 4).
Table 4.
Unadjusted (bivariate analysis) and adjusted (multivariate analysis) relationship between top four reasons why sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are consumed according to sociodemographic variables among U.S. adult SSB consumers—Omnibus Survey, 2021.
| Characteristics | Reasons Why SSB Are Consumed | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bivariate Analysis Prevalence (%) |
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) |
|||||||
| Taste | Craving | Fizz/bubbles | Thirst | Taste | Craving | Fizz/bubble | Thirst | |
| Age | ||||||||
| 18–34 years old | 57.2 | 34.7 * | 28.2 * | 22.0 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 2.8 (1.7, 4.8) | 2.4 (1.4, 4.1) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.3) |
| 35–49 years old | 63.4 | 35.0* | 22.4 * | 20.9 | 1.6 (1.0, 2.6) | 2.8 (1.7, 4.9) | 2.1 (1.2, 3.7) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.1) |
| ≥50 years old | 51.8 | 20.4 * | 14.8 * | 18.7 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Men | 56.1 | 27.3 | 20.0 | 21.6 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Women | 56.7 | 29.4 | 21.6 | 19.0 | 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) |
| Race/Ethnicity | ||||||||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 51.0 | 29.1 | 13.4 | 23.5 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.5) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.6) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.3) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.5) |
| Hispanic | 55.3 | 25.9 | 17.5 | 22.9 | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.5) | 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) |
| Other/multiracial, non-Hispanic | 55.3 | 18.8 | 24.0 | 14.9 | 0.7 (0.4, 1.4) | 0.4 (0.2, 1.0) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.7) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.8) |
| White, non-Hispanic | 58.0 | 30.6 | 22.9 | 19.6 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Education | ||||||||
| ≤High school | 52.7 | 28.0 | 19.3 | 22.1 | 0.7 (0.4, 1.1) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) | 0.5 (0.3, 1.0) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.2) |
| Some college | 54.8 | 28.9 | 21.4 | 22.1 | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.2) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.4) |
| College graduate | 63.4 | 28.4 | 22.3 | 15.6 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Annual household income | ||||||||
| <USD 25,000 | 38.7 * | 26.9 | 27.1 | 21.4 | 0.6 (0.3, 1.1) | 1.2 (0.5, 2.6) | 2.7 (1.2, 6.1) | 1.3 (0.6, 2.9) |
| USD 25,000–<USD 50,000 | 52.8 * | 32.4 | 21.6 | 24.2 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) | 1.9 (1.0, 3.6) | 1.6 (0.8, 3.3) | 1.5 (0.7, 2.8) |
| USD 50,000–<USD 100,000 | 61.1 * | 30.0 | 21.5 | 20.5 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.3) | 1.7 (1.0, 3.0) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.3) |
| ≥USD 100,000 | 60.5 * | 25.2 | 17.2 | 17.5 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Not married | 56.3 | 32.3 | 24.0 | 22.1 | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) |
| Married | 56.5 | 25.5 | 18.4 | 18.9 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Weight status a (n = 602) | ||||||||
| Underweight/healthy weight | 58.8 | 24.9 | 18.6 | 16.4 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Overweight | 56.8 | 32.4 | 20.5 | 25.2 | 1.0 (0.7, 1.6) | 1.8 (1.1, 3.0) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.4) | 1.7 (1.0, 3.1) |
| Obesity | 55.0 | 29.3 | 20.7 | 22.2 | 1.0 (0.7, 1.6) | 1.6 (1.0, 2.7) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.5) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.5) |
| Census region | ||||||||
| Northeast | 60.3 | 34.7 | 18.4 | 16.2 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.2) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.9) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.3) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) |
| Midwest | 53.7 | 24.7 | 22.4 | 15.5 | 10 (0.6, 1.6) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.5) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.2) |
| South | 55.1 | 27.4 | 17.1 | 25.4 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| West | 57.5 | 28.1 | 27.1 | 19 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.1) | 1.9 (1.1, 3.4) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) |
| Having children (<18 years old) in household | ||||||||
| No | 56.2 | 28.4 | 20.2 | 21.2 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Yes | 56.7 | 28.4 | 22.0 | 18.7 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) |
| Urbanicity (n = 656) | ||||||||
| Urban | 54.1 | 27.0 | 15.6 | 19.0 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Rural | 52.6 | 21.8 | 23.5 | 16.2 | 1.0 (0.6, 1.7) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.4) | 1.6 (0.8, 3.2) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.5) |
| Suburban | 59.3 | 31.9 | 22.7 | 22.7 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.1) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.8) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) |
* p < 0.05 across categories based on chi-squares tests. a Weight status was based on calculated body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2): underweight/healthy weight, BMI < 25; overweight, BMI 25–<30; obesity, BMI ≥ 30.
4. Discussion
Overall, nearly 7 of 10 of the surveyed U.S. adults consumed any SSB in the past week, and 38% reported doing so at least 7 times during the past week (or on average once a day) in 2021. The daily intake of SSBs in our study was lower than previous findings in which it was shown that 63% of U.S. adults in 2010 and 2015 consumed SSBs at least once a day [7], with significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics. While most adults reported drinking SSBs at least one time in the previous seven days, the groups with the highest levels of consumption include adults aged 35–49 years old, NH Black and Hispanic adults, those with ≤high school education, those with low household income (<USD 25,000/year), and those who have children (<18 years old) in their household.
In our study, the four most common occasions at which SSBs were consumed among U.S. adults were (1) at mealtime, (2) between meals/when snacking, (3) in social settings/when others were drinking SSBs, and (4) at the beginning of the day. Similar to our findings, a previous study showed that adults consumed 85 kcal and 66 kcal from SSBs during mealtime and for snacks, respectively [11]. We also found that the top four leading locations in which SSBs were consumed were (1) at home, (2) in restaurants/bars, (3) at work, and (4) in cars. In accordance with our findings, previous studies reported that more than half of the calories obtained from SSBs were consumed at home among U.S. adults [12,19]. Based on 2011–2012 NHANES data, SSB consumers purchased 52% of their SSB-derived calories from supermarkets/grocery stores, 16% from fast-food restaurants, 11% from convenience stores, 8% from full-service restaurants, and 4% from vending machines [20]. It is possible that U.S. adults purchase most of their SSBs from supermarkets/grocery stores and consume SSBs at home. In our study, the top four leading reasons for drinking SSBs among U.S. adults were (1) enjoying the taste, (2) satisfying cravings for something sweet, (3) liking the carbonation, and (4) satisfying thirst. Another study also reported that the taste is one of the most important driving factors of the consumption of SSBs [13].
While communication campaigns have been demonstrated to reduce SSB sales and consumption among adults [21,22,23]. the findings from this research provide additional insights into opportunities for identifying an audience, messaging, and SSB counter-marketing. SSB counter-marketing messages can be placed in locations where SSBs are likely to be purchased (i.e., grocery stores) and consumed (i.e., home). Geofencing or location-based marketing, wherein virtual boundaries are established around a location and a digital notification or advertisement is prompted when a mobile device crosses these boundaries, can be used in grocery stores and select neighborhoods with high SSB consumption [24]. In addition, since SSB consumption is highest at mealtime, SSB counter-marketing messages can be sent through channels likely to be viewed in the home (e.g., internet, streaming media, radio, and television) [25]. Such placements can be concentrated at times when adults are most likely to be making decisions regarding beverage choices associated with meals, and through channels they are most likely to be using at these times (e.g., mobile and tablet recipe applications, YouTube food channels, etc.).
Among the adults who drank any SSBs during the past 7 days, most said they did so because they enjoy the taste. Future research could explore the taste appeal of healthy alternatives to SSBs and the effectiveness of messaging (e.g., counter-marketing) that prioritizes the benefits of not drinking SSBs over the appeal of taste.
5. Conclusions
This study is one of the first studies examining when, where, and why American adults consume SSBs using nationally representative data. However, this study is subject to at least two limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study and, therefore, causal relationships cannot be determined. Second, the outcome of SSB intake was measured by frequency; thus, the volume of intake was not measured. Third, the questionnaire used in the study was not validated. Lastly, it is possible that the COVID-19 pandemic might have had an impact on the responses to the occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs. In conclusion, however, the findings from this study can help public health programs, educators, dieticians, and others that engage with individuals and families to consider producing messaging information that may help focused populations reduce SSB intake to support their health.
Author Contributions
S.H.L. wrote the original draft and conducted data analyses. S.H.L., S.P., T.C.L., R.L. and H.M.B. contributed to the conceptualization, writing, reviewing, and editing of this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study protocol was approved by FHI 360’s Office of International Research Ethics (OIRE) (#1596966-1). As the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) only had access to de-identified data, CDC’s IRB approval was not required.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due licensing agreements but are available directly from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Agriculture . 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th ed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Washington, DC, USA: 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Malik V.S., Hu F.B. Sweeteners and Risk of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: The Role of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. Curr. Diabetes Rep. 2012;12:195–203. doi: 10.1007/s11892-012-0259-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Malik V.S., Popkin B.M., Bray G.A., Després J.P., Hu F.B. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Circulation. 2010;121:1356–1364. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.876185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Luger M., Lafontan M., Bes-Rastrollo M., Winzer E., Yumuk V., Farpour-Lambert N. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review from 2013 to 2015 and a Comparison with Previous Studies. Obes. Facts. 2017;10:674–693. doi: 10.1159/000484566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Huang C., Huang J., Tian Y., Yang X., Gu D. Sugar sweetened beverages consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Atherosclerosis. 2014;234:11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2014.01.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dai J., Soto M.J., Dunn C.G., Bleich S.N. Trends and patterns in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among children and adults by race and/or ethnicity, 2003–2018. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24:2405–2410. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021001580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chevinsky J.R., Lee S.H., Blanck H.M., Park S. Prevalence of Self-Reported Intake of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Among US Adults in 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2010 and 2015. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E35. doi: 10.5888/pcd18.200434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rosinger A., Herrick K.A., Gahche J.J., Park S. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption among U.S. Youth, 2011–2014. National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD, USA: 2017. [(accessed on 11 December 2022)]. NCHS Data Brief. Available online: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/44039. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Park S., Thompson F.E., McGuire L.C., Pan L., Galuska D.A., Blanck H.M. Sociodemographic and Behavioral Factors Associated with Added Sugars Intake among US Adults. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2016;116:1589–1598. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.04.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Imoisili O., Park S., Lundeen E.A., Pan L., O’Toole T., Siegel K.R., Blanck H.M. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake Among Adults, by Residence in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties in 12 States and the District of Columbia, 2017. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2020;17:E07. doi: 10.5888/pcd17.190108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kit B.K., Fakhouri T.H., Park S., Nielsen S.J., Ogden C.L. Trends in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among youth and adults in the United States: 1999–2010. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013;98:180–188. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.057943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ogden C.L., Kit B.K., Carroll M.D., Park S. Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the United States, 2005–2008. National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD, USA: 2011. pp. 1–8. NCHS Data Brief. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Block J.P., Gillman M.W., Linakis S.K., Goldman R.E. “If It Tastes Good, I’m Drinking It”: Qualitative Study of Beverage Consumption Among College Students. J. Adolesc. Health. 2013;52:702–706. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.11.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.McNaughton S.A., Pendergast F.J., Worsley A., Leech R.M. Eating occasion situational factors and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in young adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020;17:71. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00975-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Liu J.L., Han B., Cohen D.A. Associations between eating occasions and places of consumption among adults. Appetite. 2015;87:199–204. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Methodological Overview. [(accessed on 2 December 2022)]. Available online: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ipsosknowledgepanelmethodology.pdf.
- 17.U.S. Census Bureau Census Regions and Division of the United States. [(accessed on 2 December 2022)]; Available online: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html.
- 18.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (US) Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence Report. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Cooperation with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Bethesda, MD, USA: 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ervin R.B., Ogden C.L. Consumption of Added Sugars among U.S. Adults, 2005–2010. National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD, USA: 2013. pp. 1–8. NCHS Data Brief. [Google Scholar]
- 20.An R., Maurer G. Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and discretionary foods among US adults by purchase location. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016;70:1396–1400. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2016.136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Schwartz M.B., Schneider G.E., Choi Y.-Y., Li X., Harris J., Andreyeva T., Hyary M., Vernick N.H., Appel L.J. Association of a Community Campaign for Better Beverage Choices with Beverage Purchases from Supermarkets. JAMA Intern. Med. 2017;177:666–674. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Farley T.A., Halper H.S., Carlin A.M., Emmerson K.M., Foster K.N., Fertig A.R. Mass Media Campaign to Reduce Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in a Rural Area of the United States. Am. J. Public Health. 2017;107:989–995. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Morley B.C., Niven P.H., Dixon H.G., Swanson M.G., McAleese A.B., Wakefield M.A. Controlled cohort evaluation of the LiveLighter mass media campaign’s impact on adults’ reported consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019574. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lakerveld J., Mackenbach J.D., de Boer F., Brandhorst B., Broerse J.E.W., de Bruijn G.-J., Feunekes G., Gillebaart M., Harbers M., Hoenink J., et al. Improving cardiometabolic health through nudging dietary behaviours and physical activity in low SES adults: Design of the Supreme Nudge project. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:899. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5839-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gesualdo N., Yanovitzky I. Advertising Susceptibility and Youth Preference for and Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Findings from a National Survey. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2019;51:16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2018.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due licensing agreements but are available directly from the corresponding author on reasonable request.