» Articles » PMID: 33778854

A Brief Motivational Intervention Differentially Reduces Sugar-sweetened Beverage (SSB) Consumption

Overview
Journal Ann Behav Med
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2021 Mar 29
PMID 33778854
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Environmental and behavioral interventions hold promise to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSBs) consumption.

Purpose: To test, among frequent SSB consumers, whether motivations to consume SSBs moderated the effects of (a) a workplace SSB sales ban (environmental intervention) alone, and (b) a "brief motivational intervention" (BI) in addition to the sales ban, on changes in SSB consumption.

Methods: We assessed whether (1) baseline motivations to consume SSBs (craving, psychological stress, or taste enjoyment) impacted changes in daily SSB consumption at 6-month follow-up among frequent (>12oz of SSBs/day) SSB consumers (N = 214); (2) participants randomized to the BI (n = 109) versus to the sales ban only (n = 105) reported greater reductions in SSB consumption at follow-up; and (3) motivations to consume SSBs moderated any changes in SSB consumption.

Results: In response to the sales ban alone, individuals with stronger SSB cravings (+1 SD) at baseline showed significantly smaller reductions in daily SSB consumption at 6-month follow-up relative to individuals with weaker (-1 SD) SSB cravings (2.5 oz vs. 22.5 oz), p < .01. Receiving the BI significantly increased reductions for those with stronger SSB cravings: Among individuals with stronger cravings, those who received the BI evidenced significantly greater reductions in daily SSB consumption [M(SE) = -19.2 (2.74) oz] than those who did not [M(SE) = -2.5 (2.3) oz, p < .001], a difference of 16.72 oz.

Conclusions: Frequent SSB consumers with stronger SSB cravings report minimal reductions in daily SSB consumption with a sales ban only, but report greater reductions if they also receive a motivational intervention. Future multilevel interventions for institutions should consider both environmental and individualized multi-level interventions.

Clinical Trial Information: NCT02585336.

Citing Articles

Components in downstream health promotions to reduce sugar intake among adults: a systematic review.

Azhar Hilmy S, Nordin N, Mohd Yusof M, Soh T, Yusof N Nutr J. 2024; 23(1):11.

PMID: 38233923 PMC: 10792802. DOI: 10.1186/s12937-023-00884-3.


Developmental Contributions to Obesity: Nutritional Exposures in the First Thousand Days.

Wu A, Oken E Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2023; 52(2):333-345.

PMID: 37197877 PMC: 10315183. DOI: 10.1016/j.gtc.2023.02.001.

References
1.
Macht M . How emotions affect eating: a five-way model. Appetite. 2007; 50(1):1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.07.002. View

2.
Perez-Morales E, Bacardi-Gascon M, Jimenez-Cruz A . Sugar-sweetened beverage intake before 6 years of age and weight or BMI status among older children; systematic review of prospective studies. Nutr Hosp. 2013; 28(1):47-51. DOI: 10.3305/nh.2013.28.1.6247. View

3.
Malik V, Schulze M, Hu F . Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006; 84(2):274-88. PMC: 3210834. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/84.1.274. View

4.
Tomiyama A . Stress and Obesity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2018; 70:703-718. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102936. View

5.
Serre F, Fatseas M, Swendsen J, Auriacombe M . Ecological momentary assessment in the investigation of craving and substance use in daily life: a systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015; 148:1-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.12.024. View