↓ 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, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Perceived impact of smaller compared with larger-sized bottles of sugar-sweetened beverages on consumption: A qualitative analysis
Published in
Appetite, January 2018
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 25%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Other 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 25%
Psychology 7 18%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Other 11 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,063,813
of 13,644,852 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
#1,740
of 3,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,184
of 267,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
#63
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,644,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.