It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Sugar sweetened beverage consumption has been suggested as a risk factor for childhood asthma symptoms. We examined whether the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018, was associated with changes in National Health Service hospital admission rates for asthma in children, 22 months post-implementation of SDIL. We conducted interrupted time series analyses (2012-2020) to measure changes in monthly incidence rates of hospital admissions. Sub-analysis was by age-group (5-9,10-14,15-18 years) and neighbourhood deprivation quintiles. Changes were relative to counterfactual scenarios where the SDIL wasn’t announced, or implemented. Overall, incidence rates reduced by 20.9% (95%CI: 29.6-12.2). Reductions were similar across age-groups and deprivation quintiles. These findings give support to the idea that implementation of a UK tax intended to reduce childhood obesity may have contributed to a significant unexpected and additional public health benefit in the form of reduced hospital admissions for childhood asthma.
Asthma is one of the most common diseases in childhood and for which the UK has the highest mortality rates in Europe. Here, the authors show that the UK soft drinks industry levy was linked with a fall in hospital admissions for asthma in children
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details







1 University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000000121885934)
2 Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Population Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, London, UK (GRID:grid.8991.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0425 469X)
3 Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK (GRID:grid.83440.3b) (ISNI:0000000121901201)
4 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Clinical Research Department, London, UK (GRID:grid.8991.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0425 469X)
5 Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK (GRID:grid.4868.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2171 1133); University of Melbourne, Allergy and Lung Health Unit, School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, Australia (GRID:grid.1008.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 088X)
6 University of Edinburgh, Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988)
7 University of Edinburgh, Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988); University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)