4.3 Article

The relationship of perceptions of tap water safety with intake of sugar- sweetened beverages and plain water among US adults

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 179-185

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980012004600

关键词

Drinking water; Beverages; Perceptions

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Research is limited on whether mistrust of tap water discourages plain water intake and leads to a greater intake of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). The objective of the present study was to examine demographic differences in perceptions of tap water safety and determine if these perceptions are associated with intake of SSB and plain water. Design The study examined perceptions of tap water safety and their cross-sectional association with intake of SSB and plain water. Racial/ethnic differences in the associations of tap water perceptions with SSB and plain water intake were also examined. Setting Nationally weighted data from the 2010 HealthStyles Survey (n 4184). Subjects US adults aged 18 years. Results Overall, 130 % of participants disagreed that their local tap water was safe to drink and 264 % of participants agreed that bottled water was safer than tap water. Both mistrust of tap water safety and favouring bottled water differed by region, age, race/ethnicity, income and education. The associations of tap water mistrust with intake of SSB and plain water were modified by race/ethnicity (P < 005). Non-white racial/ethnic groups who disagreed that their local tap water was safe to drink were more likely to report low intake of plain water. The odds of consuming 1 SSB/d among Hispanics who mistrusted their local tap water was twice that of Hispanics who did not (OR = 20; 95 % CI 12, 33). Conclusions Public health efforts to promote healthy beverages should recognize the potential impact of tap water perceptions on water and SSB intake among minority populations.

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

4.3
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