↓ Skip to main content

Impact of bottle size on in-home consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: a feasibility and acceptability study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of bottle size on in-home consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: a feasibility and acceptability study
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4214-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleni Mantzari, Gareth J. Hollands, Rachel Pechey, Susan Jebb, Theresa M. Marteau

Abstract

Consumption of sugars-sweetened beverages (SSB) increases energy intake and the risk of obesity. Large packages increase consumption of food, implying that smaller bottle sizes may help curb SSB consumption, but there is a lack of relevant evidence relating to these products. This study explores the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of different bottle sizes on SSB consumption at home. Households in Cambridge, England, which purchased at least 2 l of regular cola drinks per week, received a set amount of cola each week for four weeks, in bottles of one of four sizes (1500 ml, 1000 ml, 500 ml, or 250 ml) in random order. The total volume received consisted of a modest excess of households' typical weekly purchasing, but was further increased for half the study households to avoid ceiling effects. Consumption was measured by recording the number of empty bottles at the end of each week. Eligible households were invited to complete a run-in period to assess levels of active participation. Thirty-seven of 111 eligible households with an interest in the study completed the run-in period. The study procedures proved feasible. The target for recruitment (n = 16 households) was exceeded. Measuring consumption was feasible: over three quarters (n = 30/37) of households returned all bottles on the majority (n = 88/101) of the study weeks completed across households. The validity of this measure was compromised by guests from outside the household who drank the study cola (n = 18/37 households on 48/101 study weeks) and consumption of the study cola outside the home. Supplying enhanced volumes of cola to nine households was associated with higher consumption (11,592 ml vs 7869 ml). The intervention and study procedures were considered acceptable. Thirteen households correctly identified the study aims. The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of running a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of presenting a fixed volume of SSB in different bottle sizes on in-home consumption. However, methods that avoid consumption being influenced by the amount of cola supplied weekly by the study and that capture out of home consumption are needed before conducting a randomised controlled trial. ISRCTN14964130 ; Registered on 18th May, 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 24%
Psychology 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Other 5 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2019.
All research outputs
#242,915
of 13,605,565 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#195
of 9,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,096
of 263,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,605,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.