Cargando…
Applying the socio-ecological model to understand factors associated with sugar-sweetened beverage behaviours among rural Appalachian adolescents
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to identify factors across the socio-ecological model (SEM) associated with adolescents’ sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study surveyed adolescents using previously validated instruments. Analyses included descript...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8272722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33427154 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021000069 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to identify factors across the socio-ecological model (SEM) associated with adolescents’ sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study surveyed adolescents using previously validated instruments. Analyses included descriptive statistics, ANOVA tests and stepwise nonlinear regression models (i.e., two-part models) adjusted to be cluster robust. Guided by SEM, a four-step model was used to identify factors associated with adolescent SSB intake – step 1: demographics (i.e., age, gender), step 2: intrapersonal (i.e., theory of planned behaviour (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, behavioural intentions), health literacy, media literacy, public health literacy), step 3: interpersonal (i.e., caregiver’s SSB behaviours, caregiver’s SSB rules) and step 4: environmental (i.e., home SSB availability) level variables. SETTING: Eight middle schools across four rural southwest Virginia counties in Appalachia. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred ninety seventh grade students (55·4 % female, 44·6 % males, mean age 12 (sd 0·5) years). RESULTS: Mean SSB intake was 36·3 (sd 42·5) fluid ounces or 433·4 (sd 493·6) calories per day. In the final step of the regression model, seven variables significantly explained adolescent’s SSB consumption: behavioural intention (P < 0·05), affective attitude (P < 0·05), perceived behavioural control (P < 0·05), health literacy (P < 0·001), caregiver behaviours (P < 0·05), caregiver rules (P < 0·05) and home availability (P < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: SSB intake among adolescents in rural Appalachia was nearly three times above national mean. Home environment was the strongest predictor of adolescent SSB intake, followed by caregiver rules, caregiver behaviours and health literacy. Future interventions targeting these factors may provide the greatest opportunity to improve adolescent SSB intake. |
---|