We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To explore mediators of gender and educational differences in sugar-sweetened soft drinks consumption (SDC) and whether gender and level of future education moderate the associations of accessibility, modelling, attitudes and preferences with SDC.
Design
A cross-sectional school-based survey within the Fruits and Vegetables Makes the Marks (FVMM) project from 2005.
Setting
The questionnaires were completed by the pupils in the classroom guided by a trained project worker during one class session. The questionnaire included questions on SDC (times/week), the potential mediators and moderators. Multilevel linear regression models were used to calculate the mediating and moderating effects.
Subjects
A total of 2870 children in 9th and 10th grade (mean age 15·5 years) at thirty-three Norwegian secondary schools were included in the present study.
Results
Girls (B = −1·06) and pupils planning higher education (B = −0·69) reported lower frequency of SDC. The strongest mediators were accessibility and modelling for future educational plans differences (explaining alone respectively 69 % and 44 %) and attitudes and preferences for gender differences (explaining alone respectively 57 % and 51 %). Significant but small moderating effects were found, and all associations between the mediators and SDC were in the same direction for both genders and for those with and without plans of higher future education.
Conclusions
Preferences and modelling may contribute to gender and educational differences in SDC. The small moderating effects indicate that interventions aiming to reduce SDC can target the same mediators for boys and girls and children planning different levels of future education.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.