↓ Skip to main content

Australian children’s consumption of caffeinated, formulated beverages: a cross-sectional analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Australian children’s consumption of caffeinated, formulated beverages: a cross-sectional analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1443-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelsey Beckford, Carley A Grimes, Lynn J Riddell

Abstract

BackgroundCaffeine is a common additive in formulated beverages, including sugar-sweetened beverages. Currently there are no data on the consumption of caffeinated formulated beverages in Australian children and adolescents. This study aimed to determine total intake and consumption patterns of CFBs in a nationally representative sample of Australian children aged 2¿16 years and to determine contribution of CFBs to total caffeine intake. Consumption by day type, mealtime and location was also examined.MethodsDietary data from one 24-hour recall collected in the 2007 Australian National Children¿s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey were analysed. CFBs were defined as beverages to which caffeine has been added as an additive, including cola-type beverages and energy drinks. Socioeconomic status was based on the highest level of education attained by the participant¿s primary caregiver. Time of day of consumption was classified based on traditional mealtimes and type of day of consumption as either a school or non-school day. Location of consumption was defined by the participant during the survey.ResultsOn the day of the survey 15% (n¿=¿642) of participants consumed CFBs. Older children and those of low socioeconomic background were more likely to consume CFBs (both P¿<¿0.001). Amongst the 642 consumers mean (95% CI) intakes were 151 (115¿187)g/day, 287 (252¿321)g/day, 442 (400¿484)g/day, and 555 (507¿602)g/day for 2¿3, 4¿8, 9¿13 and 14¿16 year olds respectively. Consumers of CFBs had higher intakes of caffeine (mean (95% CI) 61 (55¿67)mg vs. 11 (10¿12)mg) and energy (mean (95% CI) 9,612 (9,247-9978)kJ vs. 8,186 (8,040-8,335)kJ) than non-consumers (both P¿<¿0.001). CFBs contributed 69% of total daily caffeine intake. CFB intake was higher on non-school days compared with school days (P¿<¿0.005) and consumption occurred predominantly at the place of residence (56%), within the ¿dinner¿ time bracket (17:00¿20:30, 44%).ConclusionsThe consumption of CFBs by all age groups within Australian children is of concern. Modifications to the permissibility of caffeine as a food additive may be an appropriate strategy to reduce the intake of caffeine in this age group. Additional areas for intervention include targeting parental influences over mealtime beverage choices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 17 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Engineering 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 18 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2015.
All research outputs
#17,741,776
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,439
of 14,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,769
of 353,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#184
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.