Effect of School District Policy Change on Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Among High School Students, Boston, Massachusetts, 2004-2006
2011

Impact of School Policy on Soda Consumption in Boston High Schools

Sample size: 2033 publication Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Cradock Angie L., McHugh Anne, Mont-Ferguson Helen, Grant Linda, Barrett Jessica L., Gortmaker Steven L., Wang Claire

Primary Institution: Harvard School of Public Health

Hypothesis

Did the restriction of sugar-sweetened beverage sales in Boston schools lead to a decrease in consumption among high school students?

Conclusion

The study found significant reductions in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among Boston high school students after the policy change, while national trends showed no significant change.

Supporting Evidence

  • Boston students reduced their average daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages from 1.71 servings in 2004 to 1.38 servings in 2006.
  • Regression analyses indicated significant declines in soda and other sugar-sweetened beverage consumption.
  • National data showed no significant change in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents during the same period.

Takeaway

When schools stopped selling sugary drinks, students drank less of them. This shows that school rules can help kids make healthier choices.

Methodology

The study used a quasi-experimental design comparing beverage consumption data from Boston high school students before and after the policy change, alongside national trends from NHANES.

Potential Biases

Potential biases may arise from differences in survey methods and demographic representation between the Boston Youth Survey and NHANES.

Limitations

The study was limited to a single community, and other health promotion activities may have influenced the results.

Participant Demographics

The sample included diverse high school students from Boston, with 37% black, 39% Hispanic, 13% white, and 9% Asian.

Statistical Information

P-Value

<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI −0.43 to −0.17

Statistical Significance

p<0.001

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication