Storybooks About Healthy Beverage Consumption: Effects in an Online Randomized Experiment With Parents

Teacher and Caregiver Perspectives on Water Is K'é: An Early Child Education Program to Promote Healthy Beverages among Navajo Children

The Water is K'é program was developed to increase water consumption and decrease consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages for young children and caregivers. The pilot program was successfully delivered by three Family and Child Education (FACE) programs on the Navajo Nation using a culturally centered curriculum between 2020 to 2022. The purpose of this research was to understand teacher and caregiver perspectives of program feasibility, acceptability, impact, and other factors influencing beverage behaviors due to the pilot program. Nine caregivers and teachers were interviewed between June 2022 and December 2022, and a study team of four, including three who self-identified as Navajo, analyzed the data using inductive thematic analysis and consensus building to agree on codes. Five themes emerged, including feasibility, acceptability, impact, suggestions for future use of the program, and external factors that influenced water consumption. The analysis showed stakeholders' strong approval for continuing the program based on impact and acceptability, and identified factors that promote the program and barriers that can be addressed to make the program sustainable. Overall, the Water is K'é program and staff overcame many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic to support healthy behavior change that had a rippled influence among children, caregivers, teachers, and many others.

A Technology-Driven, Healthcare-Based Intervention to Improve Family Beverage Choices: Results from a Pilot Randomized Trial in the United States

Background: Healthcare-based interventions to address sugary beverage intake could achieve broad reach, but intensive in-person interventions are unsustainable in clinical settings. Technology-based interventions may provide an alternative, scalable approach. Methods: Within an academic health system in the United States that already performs electronic health record-based sugary drink screening, we conducted a pilot randomized trial of a technology-driven family beverage choice intervention. The goal of the intervention was to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) and fruit juice (FJ) consumption in 60 parent-child dyads, in which children were 1-8 years old. The pediatrician-initiated intervention consisted of a water promotion toolkit, a video, a mobile phone application, and 14 interactive voice-response phone calls to parents over 6 months. The study was conducted between June 2021 and May 2022. The aim of the pilot study was to assess the potential feasibility and efficacy of the newly developed intervention. Results: Intervention fidelity was excellent, and acceptability was high for all intervention components. Children in both the intervention and the control groups substantially decreased their consumption of SSB and FJ over follow-up (mean combined baseline 2.5 servings/day vs. 1.4/day at 6 months) and increased water consumption, but constrained linear mixed-effects models showed no differences between groups on these measures. Compared to parents in the control group, intervention parents had larger decreases in SSB intake at 3 months (-0.80 (95% CI: -1.54, -0.06, p = 0.03) servings daily), but these differences were not sustained at 6 months. Conclusion: These findings suggest that, though practical to implement in a clinical care setting and acceptable to a diverse participant group, our multicomponent intervention may not be universally necessary to achieve meaningful behavior changes around family beverage choice. A lower-intensity intervention, such as EHR-based clinical screening alone, might be a less resource-intense way for health systems to achieve similar behavioral outcomes. Future studies might therefore explore whether, instead of applying a full intervention to all families whose children overconsume SSB or FJ, a stepped approach, starting with clinical screening and brief counseling, could be a better use of health system resources.

Should messages discourage sugary drinks, encourage water, or both? A randomized experiment with U.S. parents

Campaigns to improve beverage consumption typically focus on discouraging unhealthy beverages (e.g., soda), encouraging healthy beverages (e.g., water), or both. It remains unclear which of these strategies is most effective. We recruited a national convenience sample of U.S. parents of children ages 2-12 (n = 1078, 48% Latino[a]) to complete an online survey in 2019. We randomly assigned participants to view: 1) a control message, 2) a soda discouragement message, 3) a water encouragement message, or 4) both soda discouragement and water encouragement messages shown side-by-side in random arrangement. Intervention messages mimicked New York City's "Pouring on the Pounds" campaign. Participants rated messages on perceived effectiveness for discouraging soda consumption and encouraging water consumption (1-5 response scales) and reported feelings and intentions about drinking soda and water (1-7 scales). Compared to those with no exposure, participants who viewed the soda discouragement message reported higher perceived discouragement from drinking soda (Average Differential Effect [ADE] = 1.18), more negative feelings toward drinking soda (ADE = 0.83) and stronger intentions to avoid drinking soda (ADE = 0.45) (ps < 0.001). The soda discouragement message also exerted beneficial effects on perceived effectiveness, feelings, and intentions related to water consumption (ADEs = 0.33-0.68; ps < 0.001). Exposure to the water encouragement message had beneficial effects on outcomes related to water consumption (ADEs = 0.28-0.81, ps < 0.001), but limited impact on outcomes related to soda consumption. Across outcomes, results indicated diminishing returns from exposure to both message types. Messaging campaigns discouraging unhealthy beverages may be more promising for improving beverage consumption than messages only promoting healthier beverages.

Use of a Water Filter at Home Reduces Sugary Drink Consumption among Parents and Infants/Toddlers in a Predominantly Hispanic Community: Results from the Water Up!@ Home Intervention Trial

BACKGROUND

Water is recommended as an alternative for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Low-income, minority groups in the United States continue to exhibit high SSB and low water consumption, and are more likely to exceed 100% fruit juice recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To test the effects of a home-based intervention designed to replace SSBs with tap water and reduce excess juice consumption among parents and their infants/toddlers.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Parents (n = 92) of infants/toddlers who participated in three Early Head Start home-visiting programs that serve predominantly Hispanic, low-income communities during 2019-2021.

INTERVENTION

The 12-week intervention (Water Up!@Home) simultaneously addressed physical barriers to tap water consumption (via a water filter) and sociocultural barriers to replacing SSBs and juice with water (via a curriculum). Comparison group received a water filter only. We hypothesized that the intervention would lead to a reduction of 6 fl oz/d in SSB and juice consumption.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Parent-reported self and infant/toddler SSBs, water (filtered, tap, or bottled), and 100% fruit juice consumption.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Analysis of covariance to compare changes in consumption between experimental groups was performed. We also conducted t tests to assess changes within groups.

RESULTS

Participants in both groups reported significant reductions in SSBs from baseline (parents: intervention [-11.2 fl oz/d; P < 0.01]; comparison [-8.0 fl oz/d; P < 0.01]; children: intervention [-1.50 fl oz/d; P = 0.03]; comparison [-1.56 fl oz/d; P = 0.02]), increased water consumption (parents in both groups [+5.6 fl oz/d]; children: intervention [+3.61 fl oz/d; P = 0.01], comparison [+2.24 fl oz/d; P = 0.05]), mostly from filtered tap water. Differences between groups were not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported significant reductions in 100% fruit juice vs comparison (parents: -3.6 fl oz/d vs -1.0 fl oz/d; P < 0.01; children: -0.73 fl oz/d vs +0.48 fl oz/d; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention effectively reduced 100% fruit juice consumption. Water security should be examined as a contributor to SSB consumption in this population.

Nutrition-related claims lead parents to choose less healthy drinks for young children: a randomized trial in a virtual convenience store

BACKGROUND

Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including fruit drinks (i.e., fruit-flavored drinks containing added sugar), contributes to childhood obesity.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine whether nutrition-related claims on fruit drinks influence purchasing among parents and lead to misperceptions of healthfulness.

METHODS

We conducted an experiment in a virtual convenience store with 2219 parents of children ages 1-5 y. Parents were randomly assigned to view fruit drinks displaying 1 of 3 claims ("No artificial sweeteners," "100% Vitamin C," and "100% All Natural") or no claim (i.e., control group). Parents selected among each of 2 drinks for their young child: 1) a fruit drink or 100% juice (primary outcome), and 2) a fruit drink or water.

RESULTS

When choosing between a fruit drink and 100% juice, 45% of parents who viewed the fruit drink with the "No artificial sweeteners" claim, 51% who viewed the "100% Vitamin C" claim, and 54% who viewed the "100% All Natural" claim selected the fruit drink, compared with 32% in the no-claim control group (all P < 0.001). "No artificial sweeteners" (Cohen's d = 0.13, P < 0.05) and "100% All Natural" (d = 0.15, P < 0.05) claims increased the likelihood of parents choosing the fruit drink instead of water but "100% Vitamin C" did not (P = 0.06). All claims made parents more likely to incorrectly believe that the fruit drinks contained no added sugar and were 100% juice than the control (d ranged from 0.26 to 0.84, all P < 0.001), as assessed in a posttest survey. The impact of claims on selection of the fruit drink (compared with 100% juice) did not vary by any of the moderators examined (e.g., race/ethnicity, income; all moderation P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Nutrition-related claims led parents to choose less healthy beverages for their children and misled them about the healthfulness of fruit drinks. Labeling regulations could mitigate misleading marketing of fruit drinks.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04381481.