Parliamentary reaction to the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: applied thematic analysis of 2016-2020 parliamentary debates.

OBJECTIVE: The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) (announced in March 2016; implemented in April 2018) aims to incentivise reformulation of soft drinks to reduce added sugar levels. The SDIL has been applauded as a policy success, and it has survived calls from parliamentarians for it to be repealed. We aimed to explore parliamentary reaction to the SDIL following its announcement until two years post-implementation in order to understand how health policy can become established and resilient to opposition. DESIGN: Searches of Hansard for parliamentary debate transcripts that discussed the SDIL retrieved 186 transcripts, with 160 included after screening. Five stages of Applied Thematic Analysis were conducted: familiarisation and creation of initial codebooks; independent second coding; codebook finalisation through team consensus; final coding of the dataset to the complete codebook; and theme finalisation through team consensus. SETTING: The United Kingdom Parliament. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. RESULTS: Between the announcement (16/03/2016) - royal assent (26/04/2017), two themes were identified 1: SDIL welcomed cross-party 2: SDIL a good start but not enough. Between royal assent - implementation (5/04/2018), one theme was identified 3: The SDIL worked - what next? The final theme identified from implementation until 16/03/2020 was 4: Moving on from the SDIL. CONCLUSIONS: After the announcement, the SDIL had cross-party support and was recognised to have encouraged reformulation prior to implementation. Lessons for governments indicate that the combination of cross-party support and a policy's documented success in achieving its aim can help cement the resilience of it to opposition and threats of repeal.

Adolescents' perspectives on soft drinks after the introduction of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: A focus group study using reflexive thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018, is a fiscal policy to incentivise reformulation of eligible soft drinks. We aimed to explore perceptions of sugar, sugary drinks and the SDIL among adolescents in the UK post-implementation. METHODS: 23 adolescents aged 11-14 years participated in four focus groups in 2018-2019. A semi-structured topic guide elicited relevant perspectives and included a group task to rank a selection of UK soft drinks based on their sugar content. Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis was used to undertake inductive analysis. RESULTS: Four main themes were present: 1) Sweetened drinks are bad for you, but some are worse than others; 2) Awareness of the SDIL and ambivalence towards it 3) The influence of drinks marketing: value, pricing, and branding; 4) Openness to population-level interventions. Young people had knowledge of the health implications of excess sugar consumption, which did not always translate to their own consumption. Ambivalence and a mixed awareness surrounding the SDIL was also present. Marketing and parental and school restriction influenced their consumption patterns, as did taste, enjoyment and consuming drinks for functional purposes (e.g., to give them energy). Openness to future population-level interventions to limit consumption was also present. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that adolescents are accepting of interventions that require little effort from young people in order to reduce their sugar consumption. Further education-based interventions are likely to be unhelpful, in contexts where adolescents understand the negative consequences of excess sugar and SSB consumption.

A whole family-based physical activity promotion intervention: findings from the families reporting every step to health (FRESH) pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of FRESH (Families Reporting Every Step to Health), a theory-based child-led family physical activity (PA) intervention delivered online. We also assessed the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention on outcomes of interest and whether pre-specified criteria were met to progress to a full-scale definitive trial. METHODS: In a three-armed randomised pilot trial, 41 families (with a 7-11-year-old index child) were allocated to a: 'family' (FAM), 'pedometer-only' (PED), or a no-treatment control (CON) arm. The FAM arm received access to the FRESH website, allowing participants to select step challenges to 'travel' to target cities around the world, log their steps, and track progress as families virtually globetrot. FAM and PED arms also received family sets of pedometers. All family members could participate in the evaluation. Physical (e.g., fitness, blood pressure), psychosocial (e.g., social support), behavioural (e.g., objectively-measured PA), and economic (e.g., expenditure for PA) data were collected at baseline, 8- and 52-weeks. RESULTS: At 8- and 52-weeks, 98 and 88% of families were retained, respectively. Most children liked participating in the study (> 90%) and thought it was fun (> 80%). Compared to the PED (45%) and CON (39%) arms, a higher percentage of children in the FAM (81%) arm reported doing more activities with their family. Adults agreed that FRESH encouraged their family do more PA and made their family more aware of the amount of PA they do. No notable between-group differences were found for childrens' minutes in moderate-to-vigorous PA. Sizeable changes of 9.4 (95%CI: 0.4, 18.4) and 15.3 (95%CI: 6.0, 24.5) minutes in moderate-to-vigorous PA was found for adults in the FAM group compared to those in the PED or CON groups, respectively. No other notable differences were found. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates feasibility and acceptability of the FRESH intervention. All progression criteria were at least partially satisfied. However, we failed to recruit the target sample size and did not find a signal of effectiveness on PA particularly long-term or in children. Further refinements are required to progress to a full-scale trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered ( ISRCTN12789422 ) on 16/03/2016.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among UK adolescents: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Less than 20% of adolescents globally meet recommended levels of physical activity, and not meeting these recommended levels is associated with social disadvantage and rising disease risk. The determinants of physical activity in adolescents are multilevel and poorly understood, but the school's social environment likely plays an important role. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a school-based programme (GoActive) to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Non-fee-paying, co-educational schools including Year 9 students in the UK counties of Cambridgeshire and Essex were eligible for inclusion. Within participating schools (n = 16), all Year 9 students were eligible and invited to participate. Participants were 2,862 13- to 14-year-olds (84% of eligible students). After baseline assessment, schools were computer-randomised, stratified by school-level pupil premium funding (below/above county-specific median) and county (control: 8 schools, 1,319 participants, mean [SD] participants per school n = 165 [62]; intervention: 8 schools, 1,543 participants, n = 193 [43]). Measurement staff were blinded to allocation. The iteratively developed, feasibility-tested 12-week intervention, aligned with self-determination theory, trained older adolescent mentors and in-class peer-leaders to encourage classes to conduct 2 new weekly activities. Students and classes gained points and rewards for engaging in any activity in or out of school. The primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed MVPA at 10-month follow-up; a mixed-methods process evaluation evaluated implementation. Of 2,862 recruited participants (52.1% male), 2,167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements; we analysed the primary outcome for 1,874 participants (65.5%). At 10 months, there was a mean (SD) decrease in MVPA of 8.3 (19.3) minutes in the control group and 10.4 (22.7) minutes in the intervention group (baseline-adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.91 minutes [-5.53 to 1.70], p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control; it was not cost-effective. Overall, 62.9% of students and 87.3% of mentors reported that GoActive was fun. Teachers and mentors commented that their roles in programme delivery were unclear. Implementation fidelity was low. The main methodological limitation of this study was the relatively affluent and ethnically homogeneous sample. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a rigorously developed school-based intervention was no more effective than standard school practice at preventing declines in adolescent physical activity. Interdisciplinary research is required to understand educational-setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN31583496.