Association of a Workplace Sales Ban on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages With Employee Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Health.

ImportanceReductions in sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake can improve health, but are difficult for individuals to achieve on their own.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether a workplace SSB sales ban was associated with SSB intake and cardiometabolic health among employees and whether a brief motivational intervention provides added benefits to the sales ban.Design, setting, and participantsThis before-after study and additional randomized trial conducted from July 28, 2015, to October 16, 2016, at a Northern California university and hospital assessed SSB intake, anthropometrics, and cardiometabolic biomarkers among 214 full-time English-speaking employees who were frequent SSB consumers (≥360 mL [≥12 fl oz] per day) before and 10 months after implementation of an SSB sales ban in a large workplace, with half the employees randomized to receive a brief motivational intervention targeting SSB reduction.InterventionsThe employer stopped selling SSBs in all workplace venues, and half the sample was randomized to receive a brief motivational intervention and the other half was a control group that did not receive the intervention. This intervention was modeled on standard brief motivational interventions for alcohol used in the workplace that promote health knowledge and goal setting.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included changes in SSB intake, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), and measures of abdominal adiposity. The primary associations tested were the correlation between changes in SSB intake and changes in HOMA-IR.ResultsAmong the 214 study participants, 124 (57.9%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 41.2 (11.0) years and a baseline mean (SD) body mass index of 29.4 (6.5). They reported a mean daily intake of 1050 mL (35 fl oz) of SSBs at baseline and 540 mL (18 fl oz) at follow-up-a 510-mL (17-fl oz) (48.6%) decrease (P < .001). Reductions in SSB intake correlated with improvements in HOMA-IR (r = 0.16; P = .03). Those not randomized to receive the brief intervention reduced their SSB intake by a mean (SD) of 246.0 (84.0) mL (8.2 [2.8] fl oz), while those also receiving the brief intervention reduced SSB intake by 762.0 (84.0) mL (25.4 [2.8] fl oz). From baseline to follow-up, there were significant reductions in mean (SE) waist circumference (2.1 [2.8] cm; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study's findings suggest that the workplace sales ban was associated with a reduction in SSB intake and a significant reduction in waist circumference among employees within 10 months. The randomized clinical trial portion of this study found that targeting those at high risk with a brief motivational intervention led to additional improvements. Workplace sales bans may offer a promising new private-sector strategy for reducing the health harms of SSB intake.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02585336

Association of a Workplace Sales Ban on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages With Employee Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Health.

ImportanceReductions in sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake can improve health, but are difficult for individuals to achieve on their own.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether a workplace SSB sales ban was associated with SSB intake and cardiometabolic health among employees and whether a brief motivational intervention provides added benefits to the sales ban.Design, setting, and participantsThis before-after study and additional randomized trial conducted from July 28, 2015, to October 16, 2016, at a Northern California university and hospital assessed SSB intake, anthropometrics, and cardiometabolic biomarkers among 214 full-time English-speaking employees who were frequent SSB consumers (≥360 mL [≥12 fl oz] per day) before and 10 months after implementation of an SSB sales ban in a large workplace, with half the employees randomized to receive a brief motivational intervention targeting SSB reduction.InterventionsThe employer stopped selling SSBs in all workplace venues, and half the sample was randomized to receive a brief motivational intervention and the other half was a control group that did not receive the intervention. This intervention was modeled on standard brief motivational interventions for alcohol used in the workplace that promote health knowledge and goal setting.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included changes in SSB intake, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), and measures of abdominal adiposity. The primary associations tested were the correlation between changes in SSB intake and changes in HOMA-IR.ResultsAmong the 214 study participants, 124 (57.9%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 41.2 (11.0) years and a baseline mean (SD) body mass index of 29.4 (6.5). They reported a mean daily intake of 1050 mL (35 fl oz) of SSBs at baseline and 540 mL (18 fl oz) at follow-up-a 510-mL (17-fl oz) (48.6%) decrease (P < .001). Reductions in SSB intake correlated with improvements in HOMA-IR (r = 0.16; P = .03). Those not randomized to receive the brief intervention reduced their SSB intake by a mean (SD) of 246.0 (84.0) mL (8.2 [2.8] fl oz), while those also receiving the brief intervention reduced SSB intake by 762.0 (84.0) mL (25.4 [2.8] fl oz). From baseline to follow-up, there were significant reductions in mean (SE) waist circumference (2.1 [2.8] cm; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study's findings suggest that the workplace sales ban was associated with a reduction in SSB intake and a significant reduction in waist circumference among employees within 10 months. The randomized clinical trial portion of this study found that targeting those at high risk with a brief motivational intervention led to additional improvements. Workplace sales bans may offer a promising new private-sector strategy for reducing the health harms of SSB intake.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02585336

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

BackgroundEnvironmental and behavioral interventions hold promise to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSBs) consumption.PurposeTo 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsFrequent 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 informationNCT02585336

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

BackgroundEnvironmental and behavioral interventions hold promise to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSBs) consumption.PurposeTo 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsFrequent 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 informationNCT02585336