Beliefs of Adolescents on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Abstinence: A Reasoned Action Approach Elicitation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is associated with many health problems, such as obesity and cardiovascular diseases. Objectives. To identify adolescents’ beliefs concerning SSB abstinence. Methods. Based on the Reasoned Action Approach, thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with adolescents (12-17 years). They were selected based on age, sex and setting in order to ensure a broad representation of adolescents from two French-speaking regions of the province of Quebec in Canada (Eastern Canada). Adolescents were invited to answer eight open-ended questions regarding SSB abstinence in the next month. A qualitative content analysis was performed independently by two experts to identify the most important beliefs. Results. According to adolescents, the main advantage of abstaining from SSB was that it would be good for their health and the main disadvantage was that they would have to give up products they liked drinking for the taste. Parents and friends seemed to be the most important social influences regarding abstaining from SSB. Adolescents mentioned many barriers to SSB abstinence, such as contextual barriers (e.g., special occasions, eating out, following sports activities), the presence of SSB drinkers, advertisements promoting SSB, and the urge to drink SSB. Facilitating factors included absence of SSB at home/school, having easy access to water and pure fruit juices, and receiving information about the negative health effects of SSB. Discussion/Conclusions. The results of this preliminary study can be used to guide the development of interventions to promote SSB abstinence among adolescents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".