Experiences and perspectives of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among Indigenous adults living in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) are a health policy target. Indigenous populations are among the highest consumers of SSB in Canada. However, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on governments to recognize health disparities among Indigenous populations as a consequence of colonialism and governmental policies. The purpose of this analysis was to explore emergent perspectives of Indigenous adults on experiences and perspectives of SSB consumption. We conducted a community-based participatory study in partnership with three Indigenous-led organizations. From 2019 to 2022, we completed qualitative interviews with Indigenous adults living in Island Lake Anisininew First Nation, Flin Flon, and Winnipeg's North End, a neighbourhood with high concentration of Indigenous people. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. Seventy-four adults participated in interviews, including 46 women, 26 men, and two identifying as two-spirit. Many participants, across all three locations, repeatedly and consistently described SSB or sugar as an addiction, which formed the primary theme for this analysis: addictive-like consumption of SSB. Addictive-like SSB consumption included comparison to other addictive substances, loss of control, and physical symptoms resulting from SSB intake (both positive and adverse) or attempting to reduce SSB intake. We identified two other secondary themes, i) perceived drivers and contexts of SSB consumption, and ii) health outcomes as a motivator for change. Perceived drivers or contexts included consuming SSB as a means to cope with stress, boredom, and poverty; SSB intake as being intertwined with other addictions or addictive substances; and drinking alone. In conclusion, addictive-like SSB consumption was reported by Indigenous adults. To address SSB intake among Indigenous populations, trauma-informed approaches should be explored that consider the colonial context.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".