4.5 Article

Demographic and behavioral factors associated with daily sugar-sweetened soda consumption in New York City adults

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11524-008-9269-8

关键词

obesity; epidemiology; carbonated beverages/adverse effects; cross-sectional studies; health disparities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the study was to assess the relations of socioeconomic and behavioral factors to frequent consumption of sugar-sweetened soda among New York City (NYC) adults and the relation of frequent consumption to body mass index (BMI; kg/m(2)). Data from the 2005 NYC Community Health Survey, a population-based telephone survey, were analyzed. Frequent consumption was defined as drinking one or more 12-oz servings of sugar-sweetened soda on an average day; 9,86.5 adults, aged 18 years and older, provided valid responses. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with frequent consumption, and linear regression models were used to assess the relation of frequent consumption to BMI. An estimated 27.5% of NYC adults are frequent sugar-sweetened soda consumers. Frequent consumption is independently associated with low household income (odds ratio [OR]=1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.1 for <200% vs. >= 600% federal poverty level) and with ethnic group and nativity (e.g., OR=3.1, 95% CI 2.6-3.7 for U.S.-born blacks vs. whites). Men report more consumption then women, but an association of less education with frequent consumption is stronger among women. Adjusting for demographics, frequent consumption is associated with more television viewing and with less physical activity. Adjusting for demographics and behaviors, frequent consumption was associated with higher BMI among women (0.7 BMI units, 95% CI 0.1-1.2) but not among men. Disparities in sugar-sweetened soda consumption mirror obesity disparities. Improved surveillance and interventions are needed to better quantify and reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, especially in groups most impacted by obesity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据