Skip to main content

Table 4 Multinomial logistic regression models investigating reported purchase changes in response to a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, among participants who were aware of a tax in their country

From: Tax awareness and perceived cost of sugar-sweetened beverages in four countries between 2017 and 2019: findings from the international food policy study

 

Mexico (n = 5,971)

UK (n = 6,271)

US (n = 712)

 

Bought less a

Bought more

Bought less

Bought more

Bought less

Bought more

 

Adjusted Prevalence

OR

(99% CI)

Adjusted Prevalence

OR

(99% CI)

Adjusted Prevalence

OR

(99% CI)

Adjusted Prevalence

OR

(99% CI)

Adjusted Prevalence

OR

(99% CI)

Adjusted Prevalence

OR

(99% CI)

Year b

            

 2017

36.4%

[ref]

5.0%

[ref]

        

 2018

41.6%

1.32 (1.07, 1.62)*

7.6%

1.74 (1.12, 2.73)*

22.0%

[ref]

4.8%

[ref]

    

 2019

41.4%

1.29 (1.05, 1.59)*

7.0%

1.58 (1.01, 2.47)*

22.2%

1.02 (0.84, 1.24)

5.5%

1.16 (0.71, 1.89)

21.9%

 

6.8%

 

Age

            

 18–29 years

35.7%

[ref]

8.5%

[ref]

22.9%

[ref]

8.7%

[ref]

15.4%

[ref]

10.7%

[ref]

 30–44 years

39.0%

1.13 (0.93, 1.38)

7.1%

0.86 (0.58, 1.28)

18.9%

0.78 (0.58, 1.05)

8.4%

0.92 (0.50, 1.69)

17.3%

1.12 (0.41, 3.02)

8.2%

0.76 (0.26, 2.21)

 45–64 years

42.2%

1.21

(0.97, 1.51)

3.4%

0.41 (0.24, 0.69)*

21.9%

0.88 (0.66, 1.17)

3.5%

0.37 (0.18, 0.78)*

25.6%

1.78 (0.67, 4.71)

5.2%

0.53 (0.14, 2.01)

 ≥ 65 years

42.0%

1.32

(0.69, 2.54)

8.3%

1.09 (0.25, 4.70)

24.3%

1.00 (0.72, 1.38)

2.7%

0.29 (0.11, 0.75)*

30.8%

2.25 (0.74, 6.86)

3.4%

0.36 (0.04, 3.43)

Sex

            

 Female

41.8%

1.14 (0.96, 1.35)

5.4%

0.72 (0.49, 1.08)

22.8%

1.07 (0.88, 1.30)

4.7%

0.84 (0.51, 1.39)

25.3%

1.43 (0.77, 2.67)

4.5%

0.52 (0.18, 1.51)

 Male

37.8%

[ref]

7.7%

[ref]

21.4%

[ref]

5.6%

[ref]

18.4%

[ref]

8.9%

[ref]

Ethnicity c

            

 Majority group

39.9%

0.95 (0.73, 1.23)

4.9%

0.55 (0.35, 0.86)*

19.7%

0.72 (0.50, 1.03)

3.6%

0.44 (0.21, 0.91)*

18.3%

0.62 (0.31, 1.23)

4.6%

0.45 (0.18, 1.12)

 Minority group

39.6%

[ref]

8.5%

[ref]

24.4%

[ref]

7.3%

[ref]

25.3%

[ref]

8.7%

[ref]

Education level d

            

 Low

43.7%

1.39 (1.09, 1.76)*

5.5%

0.81 (0.48, 1.36)

23.9%

1.39 (1.12, 1.73)*

8.1%

2.67 (1.53, 4.64)*

30.0%

1.58 (0.83, 3.01)

5.0%

0.63 (0.25, 1.57)

 Medium

40.7%

1.25 (0.93, 1.66)

6.6%

0.94 (0.50, 1.78)

22.8%

1.24 (0.99, 1.55)

4.8%

1.49 (0.85, 2.61)

16.0%

0.70 (0.30, 1.65)

5.9%

0.62 (0.16, 2.43)

 High

35.3%

[ref]

7.6%

[ref]

19.5%

[ref]

3.4%

[ref]

20.6%

[ref]

8.6%

[ref]

Income adequacy e

            

 High

37.2%

0.80 (0.67, 0.95)*

6.6%

0.95 (0.65, 1.41)

19.5%

0.73 (0.58, 0.91)*

5.4%

1.02 (0.59, 1.76)

18.9%

0.74 (0.38, 1.45)

8.2%

1.61 (0.55, 4.72)

 Low

42.5%

[ref]

6.3%

[ref]

25.0%

[ref]

4.9%

[ref]

24.7%

[ref]

4.9%

[ref]

SSB healthfulness perceptions f

            

 Healthy

35.4%

0.73 (0.57, 0.93)*

8.6%

1.64 (1.05, 2.55)*

16.8%

0.55 (0.34, 0.88)*

8.8%

2.76 (1.51, 5.04)*

17.8%

0.65 (0.25, 1.69)

8.9%

1.86 (0.69, 5.01)

 Unhealthy

44.3%

[ref]

4.8%

[ref]

28.2%

[ref]

2.9%

[ref]

26.1%

[ref]

4.5%

[ref]

Perceived cost of SSBs

            

 Yes – a little more

41.4%

1.24 (1.03, 1.49)*

7.0%

1.68 (1.11, 2.53)*

20.2%

1.43 (1.14, 1.80)*

6.6%

2.25 (1.18, 4.27)*

18.9%

1.20 (0.56, 2.57)

8.5%

3.64 (1.10, 12.05)*

 Yes – a lot more

40.4%

1.21 (0.90, 1.63)

8.2%

1.96 (1.10, 3.49)*

32.4%

2.74 (2.04, 3.67)*

6.0%

2.42 (1.06, 5.56)*

29.2%

2.27 (0.92, 5.60)

11.3%

5.96 (1.61, 22.11)*

 No / Don’t know

37.5%

[ref]

4.7%

[ref]

15.6%

[ref]

3.3%

[ref]

17.3%

[ref]

2.6%

[ref]

  1. Results from multinomial logistic regression models investigating correlates of participants in Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States reporting that they ‘bought less’ or ‘bought more’ taxed beverages (versus ‘mixed response / no change’) in response to a sugar-sweetened beverage tax
  2. UK, United Kingdom; US, United States; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; SSB, sugar sweetened beverage
  3. *Significantly different (compared to reference group) at p < .01
  4. a Participants reporting that they ‘Bought less’ (at least one ‘buy less’ and no ‘buy more’ for taxed beverages) or ‘Bought more’ (at least one ‘buy more’ and no ‘buy less’ for taxed beverages) versus ‘Mixed response / No change’ when asked, “Has the tax changed whether you buy the following drinks for you or your family?”
  5. b Results for all year comparisons are provided in Additional file 4
  6. c Ethnicity categories as per census questions asked in each country: 1) Australia majority = only speaks English at home, minority = speaks a language besides English at home; 2) Canada majority = White, minority = other ethnicity; 3) Mexico majority = Non-indigenous, minority = indigenous; 4) United Kingdom majority = White, minority = other ethnicity; 5) US majority = White, minority = other ethnicity
  7. d Participants were asked, “What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?” Responses were categorized as ‘low’ (completed secondary school or less), ‘medium’ (some post-secondary qualifications), or ‘high’ (university degree or higher) according to country-specific criteria
  8. e Participants were asked, “Thinking about your total monthly income, how difficult or easy is it for you to make ends meet?”, with response options ‘Very easy’, ‘Easy’ and ‘Neither easy nor difficult’ categorized as “High”, and ‘Difficult’ and ‘Very difficult’ categorized as “Low”
  9. f Participants were shown a 500 mL bottle of regular soda and asked, “In your opinion, how unhealthy or healthy is this type of drink?”, with response options ‘Very healthy’, ‘Healthy’, ‘A little healthy’ and ‘Neither healthy nor unhealthy’ categorized as “Healthy”, and ‘A little unhealthy’, ‘Unhealthy’ and ‘Very unhealthy’ categorized as “Unhealthy”
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us