A Brief Motivational Intervention Differentially Reduces Sugar-sweetened Beverage (SSB) Consumption.

Ashley E Mason, Laura Schmidt, Laura Ishkanian, Laurie M Jacobs, Cindy Leung, Leeane Jensen, Michael A Cohn, Samantha Schleicher, Alison R Hartman, Janet M Wojcicki, Robert H Lustig, Elissa S Epel

Journal: Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 2021;55(11):1116-1129

PMID: 33778854

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Environmental and behavioral interventions hold promise to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSBs) consumption.

PURPOSE

To test, among frequent SSB consumers, whether motivations to consume SSBs moderated the effects of (a) a workplace SSB sales ban (environmental intervention) alone, and (b) a "brief motivational intervention" (BI) in addition to the sales ban, on changes in SSB consumption.

METHODS

We assessed whether (1) baseline motivations to consume SSBs (craving, psychological stress, or taste enjoyment) impacted changes in daily SSB consumption at 6-month follow-up among frequent (>12oz of SSBs/day) SSB consumers (N = 214); (2) participants randomized to the BI (n = 109) versus to the sales ban only (n = 105) reported greater reductions in SSB consumption at follow-up; and (3) motivations to consume SSBs moderated any changes in SSB consumption.

RESULTS

In response to the sales ban alone, individuals with stronger SSB cravings (+1 SD) at baseline showed significantly smaller reductions in daily SSB consumption at 6-month follow-up relative to individuals with weaker (-1 SD) SSB cravings (2.5 oz vs. 22.5 oz), p < .01. Receiving the BI significantly increased reductions for those with stronger SSB cravings: Among individuals with stronger cravings, those who received the BI evidenced significantly greater reductions in daily SSB consumption [M(SE) = -19.2 (2.74) oz] than those who did not [M(SE) = -2.5 (2.3) oz, p < .001], a difference of 16.72 oz.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent SSB consumers with stronger SSB cravings report minimal reductions in daily SSB consumption with a sales ban only, but report greater reductions if they also receive a motivational intervention. Future multilevel interventions for institutions should consider both environmental and individualized multi-level interventions.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

NCT02585336.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

Address: Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, USA.; Department of Psychiatry, UCSF, San Francisco, USA.; Phillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, UCSF, San Francisco, USA.; Campus Life Services, UCSF Wellness Program, UCSF, San Francisco, USA.; Department of Nutritional Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.; Department of Medicine, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.; Department of Psychology, College of Arts & Sciences, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA.; Department of Pediatrics, UCSF, San Francisco, USA.; Department of Psychiatry, Center for Health and Community, UCSF, San Francisco, USA.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.