Adolescent Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake is Associated With Parent Intake,Not Knowledge of Health Risks

Abstract

Purpose:

To examine associations of adolescent sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake with parent SSB intake and parent and adolescent knowledge of SSB-related health risks.

Design:

Quantitative, cross-sectional.

Setting:

2014 SummerStyles survey.

Subjects:

Nine hundred and ninety parent and adolescent (12-17 years) pairs.

Measures:

The outcome was self-reported adolescent intake (0, >0 to <1, or ≥1 time/day) of SSBs (soda, fruit drinks, sports/energy drinks, other SSBs). The exposures were self-reported parent SSB intake (0, >0 to <1, ≥1 to <2, or ≥2 times/day) and parent and adolescent knowledge of SSB-related health risks (weight gain, diabetes, and dental caries).

Analysis:

Separate multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for adolescent SSB intake ≥1 time/day (ref: 0 times/day), according to (1) parent SSB intake and (2) parent and (3) adolescent knowledge.

Results:

About 31% of adolescents consumed SSBs ≥1 time/day, and 43.2% of parents consumed SSBs ≥2 times/day. Adolescent and parent knowledge that SSB intake is related to health conditions ranged from 60.7% to 80.4%: weight gain (75.0% and 80.4%, respectively), diabetes (60.7% and 71.4%, respectively), and dental caries (77.5% and 72.9%, respectively). In adjusted models, adolescent SSB intake ≥1 time/day was associated with parent intake ≥2 times/day (aOR = 3.30; 95% confidence interval = 1.62-6.74) but not with parent or adolescent knowledge of health risks.

Conclusion:

Parental SSB intake may be an important factor in understanding adolescent behavior; knowledge of SSB-related health conditions alone may not influence adolescent SSB behavior.

Keywords

sugar-sweetened beverages knowledge adolescents parents family behavioral concordance

Purpose

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), such as nondiet soda, fruit drinks that are not 100% fruit juice, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened tea, are the largest source of added sugars in the diet of US children.¹ During 2011 to 2014, 62.9% of US youth aged 2 to 19 years consumed at least 1 SSB on a given day, with adolescents aged 12 to 19 years having the highest SSB intake among youth.² Males aged 12 to 19 years, in particular, are high consumers of SSBs, obtaining on average 232 kcal from SSBs on a given day, compared to 162 kcal consumed by females in this age-group.²

Research has shown that frequent (eg, ≥1 time/day) SSB consumption in youth is positively associated with the risk of obesity,^3

–7 insulin resistance,⁸ metabolic syndrome,^9,10 asthma,¹¹ and dental caries.¹² Due to these health risks associated with frequent SSB consumption, efforts have focused on reducing regular SSB consumption among youth. The success of these efforts may depend upon understanding the multiple factors associated with youth SSB consumption.

One study found that more than half of SSB consumption among youth occurs at home.¹³ Therefore, the family food environment and parents’ behaviors may influence children’s consumption of SSBs. The Family Ecological Model provides a conceptual framework outlining parenting domains pertaining to diet and physical activity that can influence a child’s obesity-related behaviors.¹⁴ They identify 4 domains: (1) knowledge and beliefs about behaviors that reduce/promote obesity risk behaviors, (2) modeling of healthy and unhealthy eating and activity behaviors, (3) shaping children’s eating and physical activity behaviors by the use of reward and punishment systems, and (4) accessibility of healthy and unhealthy eating and physical activity options.¹⁴ Some research has explored the pathways in this framework, as they relate to the influence of parents’ knowledge and practices on youth SSB intake.

Studies have found that parental consumption of SSBs is positively associated with children’s consumption.^15

–19 Research has also shown that availability of SSBs in the home is positively associated with SSB consumption among youth.^15
–17,20 Additionally, several family behaviors and practices have been found to be associated with a child’s SSB consumption: parent restriction of a child’s SSB intake,²⁰ screen time,^21

–24 frequency of eating meals as a family,²⁰ and frequency of eating at restaurants, particularly fast food restaurants.^21,25

–28

Research has found that mothers’ general knowledge about nutrition is associated with healthier diets in children, and this association is stronger among younger children.²⁹ Few studies have examined the relationship between parents’ and youths’ knowledge about SSBs and youths’ SSB intake. Two studies explored the relationship between parents’ knowledge about the sugar and calories in SSBs and youths’ SSB intake, but neither found a significant association.^30,31 To our knowledge, the association between adolescent SSB intake and both parent and adolescent knowledge of specific health risks related to daily SSB intake has not been examined in the same study. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine associations of adolescent SSB intake with (1) parent SSB intake,(2) parent, and (3) adolescent knowledge of SSB-related health risks.

Methods

Study Sample and Survey Administration

We used data from the summer wave of Porter Novelli’s 2014 Styles survey, which is an annual online survey of US panelists in GfK’s Knowledge Panel (http://www.gfk.com/en-us/products-a-z/us/knowledgepanel-united-states/). The Knowledge Panel is established using address-based sampling methods and contains approximately 55 000 panelists. If needed, a laptop computer and access to the Internet were provided for home use. The Styles surveys are panel surveys designed to inquire about a variety of topics, including consumers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors pertaining to health issues.

The present study is based on participants from 2 waves of the Styles surveys—SpringStyles and SummerStyles. The spring survey was sent from March 31, 2014, to April 21, 2014, to 4168 parents (defined hereafter as having adolescent children between the ages of 12 and 17 years), including 1023 parents within a random sample of 7873 adults (≥18 years) from the panel, plus a supplemental oversample of 3145 parents (Figure 1). The spring survey had a response rate of 55.2% with 2302 parents completing the survey. During the summer wave of Styles from June 13, 2014, to July 7, 2014, a parent–adolescent pairs survey was distributed to 2153 parents who completed the spring wave, including 539 parents in a random sample of 4545 adults and a supplemental oversample of 1614 parents. Parents were asked to encourage their adolescents aged 12 to 17 years to complete the adolescent section of the survey. If the parent had more than 1 adolescent aged 12 to 17 years in the home, the automated survey randomly selected 1 adolescent to participate in the survey. Adolescent–adult dyad households who completed the survey received nominal compensation (reward points worth approximately $10) and were eligible to win an in-kind prize through a monthly sweepstakes. The SummerStyles survey was completed by 1005 parent–adolescent pairs, for a response rate of 46.7%. For the present study, the final analytic sample included 990 parent–adolescent pairs who had data on SSB intake (n = 15, 1.5%, were excluded due to missing SSB data).

Figure 1.

Survey administration and sample selection for 2014 SpringStyles and SummerStyles surveys. †Sugar-sweetened beverage.

The data were weighted, according to characteristics of the adolescent respondents, to match the US Current Population Survey proportions for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, household income, census region, metro status, whether or not a respondent had Internet access prior to joining the panel, and number of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in the house (a proxy for household size). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention licensed the results of the 2014 SummerStyles survey from Porter Novelli. Analyses of these data were exempt from institutional review board approval because personal identifiers were not included in the data file.

Outcome Variable

The outcome of interest was frequency of adolescent SSB intake, which was measured using 1 food frequency questionnaire (FFQ)-style screener question: (1) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you drink sodas, fruit drinks, sports or energy drinks, and other sugar-sweetened drinks? Do not include 100% fruit juice, diet drinks, or artificially sweetened drinks.” Adolescents provided the frequency of their consumption using the following response options: none, 1 to 6 times/week, 1 time/day, 2 times/day, 3 times/day, or ≥4 times/day. To enable an assessment of daily consumption, adolescent intake was categorized as 0, >0 to <1, and ≥1 time/day.

Exposure Variables

There were 7 main exposure variables: parent SSB intake and parent and adolescent knowledge of 3 SSB-associated health conditions. Frequency of parent SSB intake was determined using 4 FFQ-style screener questions: (1) “During the past month, how often did you drink REGULAR SODA or pop that contains sugar? Do NOT include diet soda”; (2) “During the past month, how often did you drink COFFEE, including lattes, and TEA, including bottled tea, that was sweetened with sugar or honey? Do not include drinks with things like Splenda or Equal”; (3) “During the past month, how often did you drink SPORTS and ENERGY drinks such as Gatorade, Red Bull, and Vitamin water?”; and (4) “During the past month, how often did you drink sweetened fruit drinks, such as Kool-Aid, cranberry cocktail, and lemonade? Include fruit drinks you made at home and added sugar to.” These questions are identical to the SSB screener used in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey, which contained a Cancer Control Supplement that measured adult dietary intake data. Parents rated the frequency of their consumption using the following response options: none, 1 to 6 times/week, 1 time/day, 2 times/day, 3 times/day, or ≥4 times/day. Response values were converted to the number of times per day that SSBs were consumed, with 1 to 6 times/week converted to 0.5 times/day (3.5 divided by 7) and ≥4 times/day converted to 4 times/day, and responses to the 4 SSB questions were summed to create a total consumption variable. Parent SSB intake was categorized as 0, >0 to <1, ≥1 to <2, and ≥2 times/day. These categories were determined based on the distribution of the data showing adults have more frequent daily SSB consumption than adolescents and to match categories used in previous research.³²

Parent and adolescent knowledge of SSB-associated health conditions was measured using the following question: “Which of the following conditions do you think are related to drinking sugary drinks, such as regular sodas, fruit drinks (eg, Kool-Aid, lemonade), sports or energy drinks (eg, Gatorade, Red Bull), and sweetened teas?” Respondents were shown the following health conditions and given the option to select all that apply: weight gain, diabetes, cavities, or none of these.

Covariates

Adolescent SSB intake and knowledge were assessed according to several sociodemographic factors, including adolescent age (12-14, 15-17 years), sex, and weight status (underweight/normal weight, overweight, obesity), parent age (18-34, 35-44, ≥45 years), parent sex, parent race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic other), parent marital status (married/domestic partnership, not married), parent education (≤high school, some college, ≥bachelors), parent weight status (underweight/normal weight, overweight, obesity), annual household income (≤$34 999, $35 000-$74 999, $75 000-$99 999, ≥$100 000), and region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West). For both parents and adolescents, self-reported weight and height data were used to calculate body mass index (BMI; weight [kg]/height [m²]). Parental weight status was categorized as underweight/normal weight (BMI <25 kg/m²), overweight (BMI 25 to <30 kg/m²), or obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).³³ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) child growth reference charts^34,35 were used to calculate adolescent BMI percentiles, and adolescent weight status was categorized as underweight/normal weight (BMI<85th percentile), overweight (85th percentile ≤BMI<95th percentile), and obesity (BMI ≥95th percentile).

Statistical Analysis

For unadjusted analyses, χ² tests were used to examine differences in adolescent SSB intake and knowledge across categories of parent and adolescent sociodemographic factors as well as to assess the associations of adolescent SSB intake with parent SSB intake and adolescent and parent knowledge of SSB-associated health conditions. We used multinomial logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios, based on a reference of 0 times/day, for adolescent SSB intake ≥1 time/day and >0 to <1 time/day. For the purpose of our study, we only presented odds ratios for the daily SSB intake group (ie, ≥1 time/day). Separate models were fit for each exposure variable: parent SSB intake and parent and adolescent knowledge (yes/no) of health conditions related to SSB intake (ie, weight gain, diabetes, and dental caries). Models were fit separately for each exposure due to collinearity. Models controlled for adolescent age, sex, and weight status as well as parent age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, weight status, household annual income, and census region. Models were run using complete case analysis, and sample sizes for the models were n = 943 for parent SSB intake, n = 945 for parent knowledge, and n = 944 for adolescent knowledge. Analyses were conducted using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS; version 9.3, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina) and were weighted to account for the survey design.

Results

Among adolescent participants, 51.4% were male, about half were between the ages of 12 and 14 years (49.2%) and half between the ages of 15 and 17 years (50.8%), and the majority were underweight or normal weight (69.4%; Table 1). Among parent participants, 59.9% were female, and the majority were non-Hispanic white (63.5%), married or in a domestic partnership (85.4%), and aged 35 years or older (85.6%). Thirty-one percent of adolescents consumed SSBs ≥1 time/day. Adolescent SSB intake differed by sex, region, and parent marital status, parent education, and parent weight status (all P < .05; χ² tests). Within sociodemographic factors where there was a significant difference in adolescent SSB intake across groups, the proportion of adolescents with SSB intake ≥1 time/day was highest among males (33.6%), those who lived in the Midwest (36.4%), those whose parent was not married (41.0%), had ≤ high school education (41.0%), and was overweight (34.1%) or obese (33.1%).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Study Participants and Their Association With Adolescent SSB Intake During the Past 7 Days (SummerStyles, 2014).

Characteristic	Weighted % ± Standard Error				P Value^b
	All	Adolescent SSB Intake^a
	All	0 times/day	>0 to <1 time/day	≥1 time/day
Total (unweighted, N = 990)		27.6 ± 1.7	41.9 ± 1.9	30.6 ± 1.8
Adolescent age (n = 990)
12-14 years	49.2 ± 1.9	28.9 ± 2.5	40.0 ± 2.6	31.1 ± 2.5	.59
15-17 years	50.8 ± 1.9	26.2 ± 2.4	43.7 ± 2.8	30.1 ± 2.6
Adolescent sex (n = 990)
Male	51.4 ± 1.9	23.4 ± 2.4	42.9 ± 2.7	33.6 ± 2.5	.04
Female	48.6 ± 1.9	31.9 ± 2.6	40.7 ± 2.6	27.3 ± 2.5
Adolescent weight status^c (n = 964)
Underweight/normal weight	69.4 ± 1.9	27.9 ± 2.0	42.7 ± 2.2	29.5 ± 2.1	.80
Overweight	16.0 ± 1.5	29.3 ± 5.0	38.4 ± 4.9	32.3 ± 5.0
Obesity	14.6 ± 1.5	25.8 ± 5.4	38.4 ± 5.3	35.8 ± 5.0
Parent age (n = 990)
18-34 years	14.5 ± 1.7	34.9 ± 6.3	31.7 ± 5.6	33.4 ± 5.9	.34
35-44 years	41.5 ± 1.8	25.3 ± 2.7	44.1 ± 3.1	30.6 ± 2.9
≥45 years	44.1 ± 1.8	27.4 ± 2.3	42.8 ± 2.5	29.7 ± 2.4
Parent sex (n = 990)
Male	40.1 ± 1.8	26.7 ± 2.7	42.5 ± 2.9	30.8 ± 2.8	.92
Female	59.9 ± 1.8	28.1 ± 2.3	41.4 ± 2.5	30.4 ± 2.3
Parent race/ethnicity (n = 990)
Non-Hispanic white	63.5 ± 1.9	28.3 ± 2.0	42.1 ± 2.1	29.5 ± 2.0	.92
Non-Hispanic black	8.5 ± 1.0	25.8 ± 6.0	37.1 ± 6.2	37.1 ± 6.4
Hispanic	17.7 ± 1.6	26.8 ± 4.7	42.1 ± 5.1	31.1 ± 4.6
Non-Hispanic other	10.3 ± 1.4	26.3 ± 5.9	46.6 ± 7.5	27.1 ± 6.6
Parent marital status (n = 990)
Married/domestic partnership	85.4 ± 1.2	28.5 ± 1.9	43.0 ± 2.1	28.5 ± 1.9	.03
Not married	14.6 ± 1.2	23.0 ± 3.9	36.1 ± 4.5	41.0 ± 4.8
Parent education (n = 990)
≤High school/GED	24.2 ± 1.6	25.1 ± 3.8	33.9 ± 3.9	41.0 ± 4.2	.002
Some college	36.7 ± 1.8	28.2 ± 3.0	40.4 ± 3.1	31.4 ± 2.8
≥Bachelors	39.1 ± 1.8	28.6 ± 2.5	49.1 ± 2.9	22.3 ± 2.4
Annual household income (n = 990)
≤$34 999	22.5 ± 1.6	26.8 ± 3.9	36.6 ± 4.1	36.7 ± 4.1	.20
$35 000-$74 999	30.8 ± 1.6	22.9 ± 2.8	46.1 ± 3.2	31.0 ± 3.0
$75 000-$99 999	20.2 ± 1.5	30.9 ± 4.1	42.2 ± 4.2	26.9 ± 3.9
≥$100 000	26.6 ± 1.7	31.7 ± 3.4	41.6 ± 3.7	26.7 ± 3.3
Parent weight status (n = 964)
Underweight/normal weight (BMI <25.0 kg/m²)	32.3 ± 1.8	30.9 ± 3.2	45.8 ± 3.4	23.3 ± 3.0	.04
Overweight (BMI 25.0 to <30.0 kg/m²)	34.7 ± 1.8	30.1 ± 3.0	35.8 ± 3.1	34.1 ± 3.1
Obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m²)	33.1 ± 1.7	23.7 ± 3.1	43.2 ± 3.4	33.1 ± 3.2
Census region (n = 990)
Northeast	17.3 ± 1.5	40.8 ± 4.6	34.3 ± 4.2	24.9 ± 4.2	.01
Midwest	24.1 ± 1.4	23.3 ± 3.1	40.3 ± 3.5	36.4 ± 3.4
South	35.2 ± 1.8	23.5 ± 2.9	46.3 ± 3.4	30.1 ± 3.1
West	23.4 ± 1.6	27.9 ± 3.6	42.0 ± 4.0	30.2 ± 3.7

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; GED, General Educational Development; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage.

^aAdolescent SSB intake was measured using 1 screener question which asked about the combined consumption of beverage types: soda, fruit drinks, sports/energy drinks, and other SSBs.

^bχ² tests were used for each variable to examine differences across categories.

^cAdolescent weight status was based on BMI: <85th percentile is normal or underweight, ≥85th percentile to <95th percentile is overweight, and ≥95th percentile has obesity. Percentiles were calculated using the CDC child growth reference charts.^33,34

The majority of adolescents identified that SSB intake is related to weight gain (75.0%), diabetes (60.7%), and dental caries (77.5%; Table 2). The proportion of adolescents who recognized weight gain as a SSB-associated health condition was highest among those 15 to 17 years of age (80.4%), those with a household income ≥$100 000/year (81.2%), and those whose parent was male (79.5%) and ≥45 years of age (82.9%; all P < .05; χ² tests). Adolescent knowledge of diabetes as a SSB-associated health condition was highest among those 15 to 17 years of age (65.2%) and those with obesity (70.5%; both P < .05; χ² tests). Adolescent recognition of dental caries as a SSB-associated health condition was highest among those whose parent was non-Hispanic white (81.1%), ≥45 years of age (84.1%), had a bachelor’s degree or higher (82.5%), and had a household income ≥$100 000/year (82.7%; all P < .05; χ² tests).

Table 2.

Characteristics of Study Participants and Their Association With Adolescent Knowledge of Conditions Related to SSB Intake (SummerStyles, 2014).

Characteristic	Adolescent Knowledge of Health Conditions Related to SSB Intake (Answering Yes)^a,b Weighted % ± Standard Error
Characteristic	Weight Gain	Diabetes	Dental Caries
Total (unweighted, n = 982)	75.0 ± 1.7	60.7 ± 1.9	77.5 ± 1.7
Adolescent age (n = 982)
12-14 years	69.3 ± 2.6^c	56.0 ± 2.7^c	76.3 ± 2.3
15-17 years	80.4 ± 2.2	65.2 ± 2.6	78.6 ± 2.4
Adolescent sex (n = 982)
Male	71.7 ± 2.5	59.8 ± 2.7	75.8 ± 2.4
Female	78.4 ± 2.3	61.7 ± 2.7	79.2 ± 2.4
Adolescent weight status^d (n = 958)
Underweight/normal weight	75.1 ± 2.0	61.6 ± 2.2^c	81.1 ± 1.8
Overweight	68.3 ± 5.2	48.1 ± 5.2	73.4 ± 5.1
Obesity	80.3 ± 4.7	70.5 ± 4.9	70.4 ± 5.3
Parent age (n = 982)
18-34 years	57.2 ± 6.4^c	60.6 ± 6.4	68.3 ± 6.1^c
35-44 years	72.1 ± 2.8	56.3 ± 3.1	73.3 ± 2.8
≥45 years	82.9 ± 1.9	64.9 ± 2.4	84.1 ± 1.9
Parent sex (n = 982)
Male	79.5 ± 2.4^c	61.3 ± 2.9	79.7 ± 2.4
Female	71.9 ± 2.4	60.3 ± 2.5	76.0 ± 2.3
Parent race/ethnicity (n = 982)
Non-Hispanic white	77.9 ± 1.8	60.9 ± 2.1	81.1 ± 1.8^c
Non-Hispanic black	62.7 ± 6.5	50.9 ± 6.6	63.6 ± 6.5
Hispanic	73.5 ± 4.5	65.3 ± 5.0	73.9 ± 4.4
Non-Hispanic other	75.6 ± 6.6	63.1 ± 7.3	80.3 ± 6.5
Parent marital status (n = 982)
Married/domestic partnership	76.2 ± 1.8	62.3 ± 2.1	78.9 ± 1.8
Not married	69.0 ± 4.7	52.8 ± 4.8	70.4 ± 4.6
Parent education (n = 982)
≤High school/GED	72.9 ± 3.9	61.2 ± 4.1	70.7 ± 3.9^c
Some college	73.5 ± 2.8	60.0 ± 3.1	77.2 ± 2.8
≥Bachelors	77.9 ± 2.5	61.0 ± 2.9	82.5 ± 2.4
Annual household income (n = 982)
≤$34 999	68.2 ± 4.2^c	57.2 ± 4.3	69.9 ± 4.1^c
$35 000-$74 999	72.6 ± 3.0	59.8 ± 3.2	77.1 ± 2.8
$75 000-$99 999	79.6 ± 3.3	62.9 ± 4.2	81.1 ± 3.6
≥$100 000	81.2 ± 3.0	63.6 ± 3.7	82.7 ± 3.0
Parent weight status (n = 958)
Underweight/normal weight (BMI <25.0 kg/m²)	77.3 ± 2.9	63.6 ± 3.4	80.8 ± 3.0
Overweight (BMI 25.0 to <30.0 kg/m²)	76.3 ± 2.8	61.1 ± 3.2	74.7 ± 3.0
Obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m²)	71.8 ± 3.2	58.2 ± 3.4	77.9 ± 2.9
Parent SSB intake^e (n = 982)
0 times/day	80.8 ± 3.9	56.1 ± 5.3	82.8 ± 4.6
>0 to <1 time/day	78.2 ± 3.6	63.2 ± 4.5	77.5 ± 4.2
≥ 1 to <2 times/day	75.5 ± 3.0	64.0 ± 3.4	78.6 ± 2.9
≥ 2 times/day	71.8 ± 2.9	58.9 ± 3.0	75.1 ± 2.7
Parent knowledge of conditions related to SSB intake^a (n = 978)
Weight gain
Yes	79.5 ± 1.7^c	–	–
No	55.1 ± 4.7	–	–
Diabetes
Yes	–	68.7 ± 2.1^c	–
No	–	40.0 ± 3.7	–
Dental caries
Yes	–	–	85.4 ± 1.6^c
No	–	–	55.7 ± 4.1
Region (n = 982)
Northeast	80.1 ± 3.9	59.6 ± 4.7	80.5 ± 3.3
Midwest	73.5 ± 3.3	55.8 ± 3.5	80.7 ± 2.9
South	74.9 ± 3.0	63.4 ± 3.2	72.9 ± 3.2
West	72.6 ± 3.6	61.8 ± 3.9	79.2 ± 3.5

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; GED, General Educational Development; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage.

^aDetermined by the question, “Which of the following conditions do you think are related to drinking sugary drinks, such as regular sodas, fruit drinks (eg, Kool-Aid, lemonade), sports or energy drinks (eg, Gatorade, Red Bull), and sweetened teas?”

^bRao-Scott χ² tests were used for each variable to examine bivariate differences across categories.

^c P < .05 based on χ² test. Denotes significant difference in adolescent knowledge across categories of the adolescent or parent characteristic.

^dAdolescent weight status was based on BMI: <85th percentile is normal or underweight, ≥85th percentile to <95th percentile is overweight, and ≥95th percentile has obesity. Percentiles were calculated using the CDC child growth reference charts.^33,34

^eParent SSB intake was measured using a screener with 4 questions, which ask about consumption of each SSB type separately: soda, sweetened coffee/tea, sports/energy drinks, and fruit drinks.

Among parents, 43.2% consumed SSBs ≥2 times/day (Table 3). Most parents recognized that SSB intake is related to weight gain (80.4%), diabetes (71.4%), and dental caries (72.9%). Parental knowledge of these health conditions was significantly associated with adolescent knowledge (Table 2). Among parents who were aware of the SSB-associated health condition, the majority of adolescents were also aware that drinking SSBs is associated with a higher risk of weight gain (79.5%), diabetes (68.7%), and dental caries (85.4%). In unadjusted analyses (Table 3), higher adolescent SSB intake was associated with higher parent SSB intake (P < .001; χ² test) and with a lack of adolescent knowledge that weight gain is related to SSBs (P = .03; χ² test). In adjusted models, adolescent SSB intake ≥1 time/day was associated with parent intake ≥2 times/day (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] = 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.62-6.74) but not with parent or adolescent knowledge of health risks related to SSB intake.

Table 3.

Bivariate and Multivariate Associations Between Adolescent SSB Intake During the Past 7 Days and Parent SSB Intake and Parent and Adolescent Knowledge of Conditions Related to SSB Intake (SummerStyles, 2014).

Consumption and Knowledge Factors	All	Bivariate Analysis Adolescent SSB Intake^a Weighted % ± Standard Error^b				Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis, Youth SSB Intake ≥1 time/day^c
Consumption and Knowledge Factors	All	0 times/day	>0 to <1 time/day	≥1 time/day	P value^d	aOR^e	95% CI
Parent SSB intake^f (n = 990)
0 times/day	12.5 ± 1.2	39.2 ± 5.2	43.1 ± 5.2	17.7 ± 3.8	<.001	Reference
>0 to <1 time/day	14.0 ± 1.1	33.4 ± 4.4	45.9 ± 4.6	20.7 ± 3.9		1.16	0.50-2.70
≥ 1 to <2 times/day	30.3 ± 1.7	26.6 ± 3.1	46.4 ± 3.5	27.0 ± 3.1		1.72	0.82-3.60
≥2 times/day	43.2 ± 1.9	22.9 ± 2.7	36.9 ± 2.9	40.1 ± 3.0		3.30	1.62-6.74^g
Parent knowledge of conditions related to SSB intake^h (n = 984)
Weight gain
Yes	80.4 ± 1.7	27.3 ± 1.9	43.0 ± 2.1	29.7 ± 2.0	.49	0.95	0.54-1.66
No	19.6 ± 1.7	28.6 ± 4.5	37.2 ± 4.5	34.2 ± 4.4		Reference
Diabetes
Yes	71.4 ± 1.8	28.2 ± 2.1	41.5 ± 2.2	30.3 ± 2.1	.83	0.89	0.54-1.46
No	28.6 ± 1.8	25.8 ± 3.4	42.8 ± 3.8	31.4 ± 3.5		Reference
Dental caries
Yes	72.9 ± 1.8	26.8 ± 2.0	43.9 ± 2.2	29.3 ± 2.0	.26	0.97	0.58-1.64
No	27.1 ± 1.8	29.5 ± 3.7	36.5 ± 3.9	34.0 ± 3.9		Reference
Adolescent knowledge of conditions related to SSB intake^h (n = 982)
Weight gain
Yes	75.0 ± 1.7	26.7 ± 2.0	44.8 ± 2.2	28.5 ± 2.0	.03	1.02	0.61-1.69
No	25.0 ± 1.7	29.3 ± 3.7	33.5 ± 3.7	37.1 ± 3.9		Reference
Diabetes
Yes	60.7 ± 1.9	27.4 ± 2.2	42.6 ± 2.4	30.0 ± 2.3	.88	1.01	0.65-1.56
No	39.3 ± 1.9	27.2 ± 2.8	41.0 ± 3.1	31.8 ± 2.9		Reference
Dental caries
Yes	77.5 ± 1.7	25.7 ± 1.9	44.2 ± 2.1	30.1 ± 2.0	.09	1.52	0.89-2.60
No	22.5 ± 1.7	33.0 ± 4.1	34.4 ± 4.1	32.6 ± 4.1		Reference

Abbreviations: aORs, adjusted odds ratios; CIs, confidence intervals; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage.

^aAdolescent SSB intake was measured using 1 screener question which asked about the combined consumption of beverage types: soda, fruit drinks, sports/energy drinks, and other SSBs.

^bWeighted percent may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

^cMultivariate logistic regression models predict adolescent SSB intake (reference: 0 times/day) based on parent SSB intake and parent and adolescent knowledge of conditions related to SSB intake. Models were run separately for each of the predictors.

^dχ² tests were used for each variable to examine bivariate differences across categories.

^eModels controlled for adolescent age, sex, and weight status, as well as parent marital status, annual household income, region, parent age, parent race/ethnicity, parent sex, parent weight status, and parent education. Sample sizes for the models were: n = 943 for parent SSB intake, n = 945 for parent knowledge of conditions related to SSB intake, and n = 944 for adolescent knowledge of conditions related to SSB intake.

^fParent SSB intake was measured using a screener with 4 questions, which ask about consumption of each SSB type separately: soda, sweetened coffee/tea, sports/energy drinks, and fruit drinks.

^gConsidered statistically significant based on 95% confidence interval.

^hDetermined by the question, “Which of the following conditions do you think are related to drinking sugary drinks, such as regular sodas, fruit drinks (eg, Kool-Aid, lemonade), sports or energy drinks (eg, Gatorade, Red Bull), and sweetened teas?”

Discussion

Our findings showed the majority of parents and adolescents recognized that SSB intake is associated with weight gain, diabetes, and dental caries. In adjusted models, high parent SSB intake (≥2 times/day) was associated with higher adolescent odds of drinking SSBs at least once per day. Previous literature has also demonstrated this positive association between parent SSB intake and youth SSB intake,^15

–19 suggesting that reducing parents’ intake of SSBs may be an important strategy to reduce SSB intake among their children.

Educating parents and youth on the health risks associated with frequent SSB intake may be an important strategy; however, education alone may not be sufficient to reduce SSB intake. We found that parent and adolescent knowledge of SSB-related conditions was not associated with adolescent odds of being a daily SSB consumer, which is somewhat consistent with previous literature. One study examined parent and adolescent knowledge of concepts related to energy balance, including several SSB knowledge questions, and found that parent knowledge significantly predicted adolescent knowledge, but neither parent nor adolescent knowledge was associated with adolescent SSB intake.³⁰ Other research has found that parents’ knowledge of the sugar and calorie content of SSBs is not associated with their children’s intake, but parents’ perception of certain SSBs such as sports drinks as being “healthy” is associated with higher intake of these beverages among their children.³¹ Another study found that adolescents who perceived energy drinks to be a safe beverage option were more likely to consume energy drinks at least once per week.³⁶ An online survey and simulation found that placing a warning label on SSBs indicating that they contribute to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay is associated with greater knowledge among parents of the health harms associated with consumption of SSBs and reduced intent to purchase SSBs for their children³⁷; this same study was conducted among adolescents aged 12 to 18 years, and it was found that those who viewed the warning label on SSBs were less likely to choose SSBs in the Internet simulation and more likely to understand the health harms associated with consumption of SSBs.³⁸ However, these studies based on online simulations measured the hypothetical effectiveness of point-of-purchase health warning labels, rather than unaided knowledge of SSB-associated health risks, and also measured hypothetical preference for SSBs rather than actual usual intake of SSBs.

Studies on the association between adult SSB-related knowledge and adult SSB intake also show equivocal findings on the relationship between SSB knowledge and behavior.^32,39 One study found that adults’ knowledge about the caloric content of regular soda was not associated with SSB intake but that knowledge of the contribution of SSBs to weight gain was associated with SSB intake.³⁹ Another study found that of 6 SSB-related health conditions (weight gain, diabetes, dental caries, high cholesterol, heart disease, and hypertension), only knowledge of heart disease was significantly associated with being a frequent daily consumer (≥2 times/day) of SSBs among US adults.³²

In addition to parental knowledge and parental modeling of behaviors, the other parenting domains captured in the Family Ecological Model have been explored in relation to youth SSB intake, specifically accessibility of unhealthy eating options and shaping children’s eating behaviors by the use of reward systems. Research has shown that greater SSB intake among youth is associated with greater availability of SSBs in the home^15
–17,20 and using food as a reward for good behavior.²⁰ Additionally, there are several other parenting practices and aspects of the home and family food environment that may be associated with a child’s SSB consumption. For example, greater SSB intake among youth is associated with greater time spent in front of television and other screens,^21

–24 less frequently eating meals as a family and more frequently eating evening meals in front of the television,²⁰ greater exposure to advertising for SSBs,⁴⁰ frequently eating at fast-food restaurants,^21,25

–28 and less restrictive parenting practices.⁴¹ However, much of this literature has focused on younger children, whose dietary habits may be more influenced by parents. Future research should focus on identifying home and parent factors that could be targeted in interventions to reduce SSB intake among adolescents, as our findings show that knowledge of SSB-related health conditions alone may not be sufficient for adolescent behavior change.

The present study is subject to limitations. First, the SummerStyles survey is cross-sectional, so causality cannot be determined. Second, the SummerStyles survey has a relatively low response rate and is based on a sample that may not be nationally representative, and therefore, the findings of this study might not be generalizable to the entire US population. However, the data were weighted, according to characteristics of the adolescent respondents, to match key sociodemographic distributions from the US census. Third, the SummerStyles survey uses FFQ-style screener questions to measure SSB intake, rather than multiple 24-hour dietary recalls or food records. However, studies have shown that the estimates of beverage intake derived from FFQs were similar to the estimates derived from multiple 24-hour dietary recalls or food records.^42
–44 Fourth, SSB intake was measured as frequency rather than volume, and therefore, the amount of SSBs consumed cannot be determined from these data. Finally, research has found that using 1 screener question to assess SSB intake in adults results in significantly lower estimates of daily SSB intake compared to using 4 screener questions⁴⁵; therefore, it is possible that SSB consumption was over- or underestimated for adolescents or parents in the current study.

In conclusion, while the majority of adolescents and parents reported knowing that SSB intake is related to weight gain, diabetes, and dental caries, parent and adolescent knowledge of these conditions was not associated with adolescent odds of consuming SSBs daily. Furthermore, our findings that high parent SSB intake was associated with adolescent daily SSB intake suggest that reducing parents’ intake of SSBs may be an important pathway to model health behaviors and reduce adolescent SSB consumption, whereas parent and adolescent knowledge of health risks alone may not be sufficient to change adolescent consumption. Understanding ways in which the home environment and parenting practices influence SSB intake among adolescents could aid in designing interventions to reduce adolescent SSB intake.

So What? Implications for Health Promotion Practitioners and Researchers

What is Already Known on this Topic?

Parental modeling of dietary behaviors may influence a child’s diet. Studies have found that parental SSB intake is positively associated with children’s SSB intake.

What does this Article Add?

High parent SSB intake (≥2 times/day) was associated with higher odds of adolescent (12-17 years) daily SSB intake (≥1 time/day; aOR = 3.30; 95% CI = 1.62-6.74). Although the majority of parents and adolescents reported knowing that SSB intake is related to weight gain, diabetes, and dental caries, parent and adolescent knowledge of these conditions was not associated with adolescent odds of being a daily consumer of SSBs.

What are the Implications for Health Promotion Practice or Research?

Reducing parents’ SSB intake may be an important pathway to model health behaviors and reduce adolescent SSB intake; however, parent and adolescent knowledge of health risks alone may not be sufficient to change adolescent intake. Future research could focus on identifying factors in the home environment and parenting practices that serve as barriers and facilitators to reducing SSB intake among adolescents.

Footnotes

Authors’ Notes

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Vos

Kaar

Welsh

. Added sugars and cardiovascular disease risk in children: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135(19):e1017–e1034.

Rosinger

Herrick

Gahche

Park

. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among U.S. youth, 2011-2014. NCHS Data Brief. 2017;(271):1–8.

Ludwig

Peterson

Gortmaker

. Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis. Lancet. 2001;357:505–508.

Malik

Schulze

. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84(2):274–288.

Frantsve-Hawley

Bader

Welsh

Wright

. A systematic review of the association between consumption of sugar-containing beverages and excess weight gain among children under age 12. J Public Health Dent. 2017;77(suppl 2):S43–S66.

Lim

Zoellner

Lee

. Obesity and sugar-sweetened beverages in African-American preschool children: a longitudinal study. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009;17(6):1262–1268.

Fiorito

Marini

Francis

Smiciklas-Wright

Birch

. Beverage intake of girls at age 5 y predicts adiposity and weight status in childhood and adolescence. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90(4):935–942.

Lin

Chan

Huang

. Fructose-rich beverage intake and central adiposity, uric acid, and pediatric insulin resistance. J Pediatr. 2016;171:90–96.

Lee

Lin

Tsai

. Association of parental overweight and cardiometabolic diseases and pediatric adiposity and lifestyle factors with cardiovascular risk factor clustering in adolescents. Nutrients. 2016;13(8):567–580.

10.

Mirmiran

Yuzbashian

Asghari

Hosseinpour-Niazi

Azizi

. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverage is associated with incidence of metabolic syndrome in Tehranian children and adolescents. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2015;12:25.

11.

Park

Blanck

Sherry

Jones

Pan

. Regular-soda intake independent of weight status is associated with asthma among US high school students. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;113(1):106–111.

12.

Park

Lin

Onufrak

. Association of sugar-sweetened beverage intake during infancy with dental caries in 6-year-olds. Clin Nutr Res. 2015;4(1):9–17.

13.

Kit

Fakhouri

Park

Nielsen

Ogden

. Trends in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among youth and adults in the United States: 1999-2010. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(1):180–188.

14.

Davison

Lawson

Coatsworth

. The Family-centered Action Model of Intervention Layout and Implementation (FAMILI): the example of childhood obesity. Health Promot Pract. 2012;13(4):454–461.

15.

Grimm

Harnack

Story

. Factors associated with soft drink consumption in school-aged children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104(8):1244–1249.

16.

Harris

Ramsey

. Paternal modeling, household availability, and paternal intake as predictors of fruit, vegetable, and sweetened beverage consumption among African American children. Appetite. 2015;85:171–177.

17.

Bauer

Neumark-Sztainer

Fulkerson

Hannan

Story

. Familial correlates of adolescent girls’ physical activity, television use, dietary intake, weight, and body composition. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:25.

18.

Greenberg

Ariza

Binns

. Activity and dietary habits of mothers and children: close ties. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2010;49(11):1026–1032.

19.

Tasevska

DeLia

Lorts

Yedidia

Ohri-Vachaspati

. Determinants of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among low-income children: are there differences by race/ethnicity, age, and sex? J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(12):1900–1920.

20.

Spurrier

Magarey

Golley

Curnow

Sawyer

. Relationships between the home environment and physical activity and dietary patterns of preschool children: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:31.

21.

Lopez

Ayala

Corder

. Parent support and parent-mediated behaviors are associated with children’s sugary beverage consumption. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(4):541–547.

22.

Barr-Anderson

Larson

Nelson

Neumark-Sztainer

Story

. Does television viewing predict dietary intake five years later in high school students and young adults? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:7.

23.

Utter

Scragg

Schaaf

. Associations between television viewing and consumption of commonly advertised foods among New Zealand children and young adolescents. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(5):606–612.

24.

Wiecha

Peterson

Ludwig

Kim

Sobol

Gortmaker

. When children eat what they watch: impact of television viewing on dietary intake in youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(4):436–442.

25.

Ayala

Rogers

Arredondo

. Away-from-home food intake and risk for obesity: examining the influence of context. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008;16(5):1002–1008.

26.

Demissie

Eaton

Lowry

. The association of meal practices and other dietary correlates with dietary intake among high school students in the United States, 2010. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29(6):e203–e213.

27.

Bowman

Gortmaker

Ebbeling

Pereira

Ludwig

. Effects of fast-food consumption on energy intake and diet quality among children in a national household survey. Pediatrics. 2004;113(1 Pt 1):112–118.

28.

Powell

Nguyen

. Fast-Food and full-service restaurant consumption among children and adolescents: effect on energy, beverage, and nutrient intake. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(1):14–20.

29.

Variyam

Blaylock

Lin

Ralston

Smallwood

. Mother’s nutrition knowledge and children’s dietary intakes. Am J Agric Econ. 1999;81(2):373–384.

30.

Nelson

Lytle

Pasch

. Improving literacy about energy-related issues: the need for a better understanding of the concepts behind energy intake and expenditure among adolescents and their parents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(2):281–287.

31.

Hennessy

Bleakley

Piotrowski

Mallya

Jordan

. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption by adult caregivers and their children: the role of drink features and advertising exposure. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(5):677–686.

32.

Park

Lundeen

Pan

Blanck

. Impact of knowledge of health conditions on sugar-sweetened beverage intake varies among US adults [published online ahead of print January 1, 2017]. Am J Health Promot. 2017.

33.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. The evidence report. NIH Publication No. 98-4083. National Institutes of Health. 1998. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2018.

34.

Kuczmarski

Ogden

Guo

2000 CDC Growth Charts for the United States: Methods and Development. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 246. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2002.

35.

Ogden

Flegal

Changes in Terminology for Childhood Overweight and Obesity. National Health Statistics Reports, No. 25. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2010.

36.

Kumar

Park

Onufrak

. Perceptions about energy drinks are associated with energy drink intake among U.S. youth. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29(4):238–244.

37.

Roberto

Wong

Musicus

Hammond

. The influence of sugar-sweetened beverage health warning labels on parents’ choices. Pediatrics. 2016;137(2):e20153185.

38.

VanEpps

Roberto

. The influence of sugar-sweetened beverage warnings: a randomized trial of adolescents’ choices and beliefs. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):664–672.

39.

Park

Onufrak

Sherry

Blanck

. The relationship between health-related knowledge and sugar-sweetened beverage intake among US adults. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014;114(7):1059–1066.

40.

Andreyeva

Rashad-Kelly

Harris

. Exposure to food advertising on television: Associations with children’s fast food and soft drink consumption and obesity. Econ Hum Biol. 2011;9(3):221–233.

41.

van der Horst

Kremers

Ferreira

Singh

Oenema

Brug

. Perceived parenting style and practices and the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by adolescents. Health Educ Res. 2007;22(2):295–304.

42.

Hedrick

Comber

Estabrooks

Savla

Davy

. The beverage intake questionnaire: determining initial validity and reliability. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(8):1227–32.

43.

Hedrick

Savla

Comber

. Development of a brief questionnaire to assess habitual beverage intake (BEVQ-15): sugar-sweetened beverages and total beverage energy intake. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(6):840–849.

44.

Siapco

Singh

Haddad

Sabate

. Relative validity of a food frequency questionnaire used to assess food intake during a dietary intervention study. Nutr Cancer. 2008;60(5):603–611.

45.

Lundeen

Park

Dooyema

Blanck

. Total sugar-sweetened beverage intake among us adults was lower when measured using a 1-question versus 4-question screener [published online ahead of print January 1, 2017]. Am J Health Promot. 2017.