↓ Skip to main content

Perceived impact of smaller compared with larger-sized bottles of sugar-sweetened beverages on consumption: A qualitative analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Appetite, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Perceived impact of smaller compared with larger-sized bottles of sugar-sweetened beverages on consumption: A qualitative analysis
Published in
Appetite, August 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.031
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption increases obesity risk and is linked to adverse health consequences. Large packages increase food consumption, but most evidence comes from studies comparing larger with standard packages, resulting in uncertainty regarding the impact of smaller packages. There is also little research on beverages. This qualitative study explores the experiences of consuming cola from smaller compared with larger bottles, to inform intervention strategies. Sixteen households in Cambridge, England, participating in a feasibility study assessing the impact of bottle size on in-home SSB consumption, received a set amount of cola each week for four weeks in one of four bottle sizes: 1500 ml, 1000 ml, 500 ml, or 250 ml, in random order. At the study end, household representatives were interviewed about their experiences of using each bottle, including perceptions of i) consumption level; ii) consumption-related behaviours; and iii) factors affecting consumption. Interviews were semi-structured and data analysed using the Framework approach. The present analysis focuses specifically on experiences relating to use of the smaller bottles. The smallest bottles were described as increasing drinking occasion frequency and encouraging consumption of numerous bottles in succession. Factors described as facilitating their consumption were: i) convenience and portability; ii) greater numbers of bottles available, which hindered consumption monitoring and control; iii) perceived insufficient quantity per bottle; and iv) positive attitudes. In a minority of cases the smallest bottles were perceived to have reduced consumption, but this was related to practical issues with the bottles that resulted in dislike. The perception of greater consumption and qualitative reports of drinking habits associated with the smallest bottles raise the possibility that the 'portion size effect' has a lower threshold, beyond which smaller portions and packages may increase consumption. This reinforces the need for empirical evidence to assess the in-home use of smaller bottles on SSB consumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Psychology 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 22 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,191,717
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
#1,217
of 4,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,939
of 323,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
#25
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 323,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.