4.3 Article

Changes in beverage consumption in Norwegian children from 2001 to 2008

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 379-385

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980011001959

关键词

Children; Time trends; Beverage consumption

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To analyse (i) differences in beverage pattern among Norwegian children in 2001 and 2008; (ii) beverage intake related to gender, parental education and family composition; and (iii) potential disparities in time trends among the different groups. Design: Within the Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM) project, 6th and 7th grade pupils filled in a questionnaire about frequency of beverage intake (times/week) in 2001 and 2008. Setting: Twenty-seven elementary schools in two Norwegian counties. Subjects: In 2001 a total of 1488 and in 2008 1339 pupils participated. Results: Between 2001 and 2008, a decreased consumption frequency of juice (from 3.6 to 3.4 times/week, P=0.012), lemonade (from 4.8 to 2.5 times/week, P<0.001) and regular soft drinks (from 2.7 to 1.6 times/week, P<0.001), but an increased consumption frequency of diet soft drinks (from 1.2 to 1.6 times/week, P=0.001), were observed. From 2001 to 2008, boys increased their frequency of juice consumption (from 3.1 to 3.3 times/week) whereas girls decreased their frequency of juice consumption (3.8 to 3.4 times/week; interaction time x gender P=0.02). Children with higher educated parents increased their frequency of juice consumption (3.6 to 3.8 times/week) whereas those with lower educated parents decreased their frequency of juice consumption (3.3 to 3.0 times/week; interaction time x parental education P=0.04). Conclusion: A lower frequency of consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages was observed among pupils in 2008 than in 2001. This is in accordance with the Norwegian health authority's goals and strategies for this time period, and is an important step to improve the dietary health of adolescents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据