Prevalence and Perceptions of Energy Drink Consumption and Risks Among Young Adults Aged 18-30 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Energy drink (ED) consumption has become a growing public health concern, particularly among young adults. Despite regulatory efforts in Saudi Arabia, limited research has explored the prevalence, perceptions, and factors influencing ED consumption in Riyadh. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of ED consumption among young adults in Riyadh, examine associated sociodemographic factors, and evaluate awareness of health risks. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a convenience sampling method with an online questionnaire distributed via social media. A total of 1,368 valid responses from participants aged 18–30 years were analyzed. The questionnaire covered sociodemographic characteristics, ED consumption patterns, influencing factors, and awareness of health risks. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and chi-square tests assessed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and ED consumption. RESULTS: Among participants, 37% consumed EDs, with the highest prevalence among males (47.63%) and individuals aged 18–22 years (76.09%). Fatigue (38.98%) and academic pressures (33.65%) were the triggers. 80.63% recognized health risks, 61.46% reported insufficient public health education. ED consumption was significantly associated with smoking (p < 0.0001) and higher income levels (p = 0.0464). RECOMMENDATION: This study recommends targeted health education campaigns for high-risk groups, including students (38.9%) and smokers (17.59%), to reduce energy drink consumption. Public awareness should emphasize ingredient label checking (55.5%) and stricter marketing regulations, as energy drinks are frequently consumed at home (30.34%). Promoting healthier alternatives in schools and workplaces can help mitigate health risks and decrease reliance on energy drinks. CONCLUSION: Despite widespread awareness of potential health risks, ED consumption remains high among young adults in Riyadh. These findings highlight the need for targeted public health campaigns, stricter regulations, and improved education efforts to mitigate excessive ED consumption.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".