4.2 Article

University stakeholders largely unaware and unsupportive of university pouring rights contracts with companies supplying sugar-sweetened beverages

期刊

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
卷 71, 期 2, 页码 403-410

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1891920

关键词

mixed methods; pouring rights; sugar-sweetened beverages; survey; university

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that university stakeholders had low awareness and support for pouring rights contracts. Males, undergraduate students, and those who believed individuals are responsible for their own consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages were more likely to support such contracts. Universities are encouraged to consider the health impacts and opinions of university stakeholders when deciding whether to enter into pouring rights contracts.
Background Pouring rights contracts are agreements in which beverage companies pay universities for exclusive marketing and rights to sell sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) in campus. This study explored university stakeholder's awareness and opinions of university pouring rights contracts. Methods: Nine hundred fifteen university stakeholders self-reported their awareness and support of pouring rights contracts along with several possible determinants of support (age, gender, nutrition education, beliefs about SSBs, beverage intake). Results: About 64.2% of participants reported no awareness of pouring rights contracts whereas only 38% reported agreeing with university pouring rights contracts. Males, undergraduate students, and those who felt individuals are responsible for their SSB consumption were more likely to support pouring rights contracts. Conclusions: University stakeholders were largely unaware of and unsupportive of pouring rights contracts. Universities are encouraged to consider the health impacts and opinions of university stakeholders when deciding whether to enter into pouring rights contracts.

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

4.2
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