̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Cambridge Public Health

Northerners, Scots and Irish excel at detecting fake accents to guard against outsiders, study suggests

ta385 — Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:00:00 +0000

People from Belfast proved most able to detect someone faking their accent, while people from London, Essex and Bristol were least accurate.

̽��ֱ��study, published today in Evolutionary Human Sciences found that the ability of participants from Scotland, the north-east of England, Ireland and Northern Ireland to tell whether short recordings of their native accent were real or fake ranged from approximately 65% – 85%. By contrast, for Essex, London and Bristol, success ranged from just over 50%, barely better than chance, to 65% –75%.

In the biggest study of its kind, drawing on 12,000 responses, the researchers found that participants across all groups were better than chance at detecting fake accents, succeeding just over 60% of the time. Unsurprisingly, participants who spoke naturally in the test accent tended to detect more accurately than non-native listener groups – some of which performed worse than chance – but success varied between regions.

“We found a pretty pronounced difference in accent cheater detection between these areas,” said corresponding author Dr Jonathan R Goodman, from Cambridge’s Department of Archaeology, and Cambridge Public Health.

“We think that the ability to detect fake accents is linked to an area’s cultural homogeneity, the degree to which its people hold similar cultural values.”

̽��ֱ��researchers argue that the accents of speakers from Belfast, Glasgow, Dublin, and north-east England have culturally evolved over the past several centuries, during which there have been multiple cases of between-group cultural tension, particularly involving the cultural group making up southeast England, above all London.

This, they suggest, probably caused individuals from areas in Ireland and the northern regions of the United Kingdom to place emphasis on their accents as signals of social identity.

̽��ֱ��study argues that greater social cohesion in Belfast, Dublin, Glasgow and the north-east may have resulted in a more prominent fear of cultural dilution by outsiders, which would have encouraged the development of improved accent recognition and mimicry detection.

People from London and Essex proved least able to spot fake accents because, the study suggests, these areas have less strong ‘cultural group boundaries’ and people are more used to hearing different kinds of accents, which could make them less attuned to accent fakery.

̽��ֱ��study points out that many speakers of the Essex accent only moved to the area over the past 25 years from London, whereas the accents of people living in Belfast, Glasgow and Dublin have ‘evolved over centuries of cultural tension and violence.’

Some might have expected Bristolians to authenticate recordings of their accent more accurately, but Goodman points out that “cultural heterogeneity has been increasing significantly in the city”. ̽��ֱ��researchers would also like to obtain more data for Bristol.

An evolved ability

Previous research has shown that when people want to demarcate themselves for cultural reasons, their accents become stronger. In human evolution, the ability to recognise and thwart ‘free riders’ is also thought to have been pivotal in the development of large-scale societies.

Dr Goodman said: “Cultural, political, or even violent conflict are likely to encourage people to strengthen their accents as they try to maintain social cohesion through cultural homogeneity. Even relatively mild tension, for example the intrusion of tourists in the summer, could have this effect.

“I'm interested in the role played by trust in society and how trust forms. One of the first judgments a person will make about another person, and when deciding whether to trust them, is how they speak. How humans learn to trust another person who may be an interloper has been incredibly important over our evolutionary history and it remains critical today.”

Overall, the study found that participants were better than chance at detecting fake accents but is it surprising that so many people failed 40–50% of the time?

̽��ֱ��authors point out that participants were only given 2-3 second clips so the fact that some authenticated with 70–85% accuracy is very impressive. If participants had heard a longer clip or been able to interact with someone face-to-face, the researchers would expect success rates to rise but continue to vary by region.

How the tests worked

̽��ֱ��researchers constructed a series of sentences designed to elicit phonetic variables distinguishing between 7 accents of interest: north-east England, Belfast, Dublin, Bristol, Glasgow, Essex, and Received Pronunciation (RP), commonly understood as standard British English. ̽��ֱ��researchers chose these accents to ensure a high number of contrasting phonemes between sentences.

Test sentences included: ‘Hold up those two cooked tea bags’; ‘She kicked the goose hard with her foot’; ‘He thought a bath would make him happy’; ‘Jenny told him to face up to his weight’; and ‘Kit strutted across the room’.

̽��ֱ��team initially recruited around 50 participants who spoke in these accents and asked them to record themselves reading the sentences in their natural accent. ̽��ֱ��same participants were then asked to mimic sentences in the other six accents in which they did not naturally speak, chosen randomly. Females mimicked females, males mimicked males. ̽��ֱ��researchers selected recordings which they judged came closest to the accents in question based on the reproduction of key phonetic variables.

Finally, the same participants were asked to listen to recordings made by other participants of their own accents, of both genders. Therefore, Belfast accent speakers heard and judged recordings made by native Belfast speakers as well as recordings of fake Belfast accents made by non-native speakers.

Participants were then asked to determine whether the recordings were authentic. All participants were asked to determine whether the speaker was an accent-mimic for each of 12 recordings (six mimics and six genuine speakers, presented in random order). ̽��ֱ��researchers obtained 618 responses.

In a second phase, the researchers recruited over 900 participants from the United Kingdom and Ireland, regardless of which accent they spoke naturally. This created a control group for comparison and increased the native speaker sample sizes. In the second phase, the researchers collected 11,672 responses.

“ ̽��ֱ��UK is a really interesting place to study,” Dr Goodman said. “ ̽��ֱ��linguistic diversity and cultural history is so rich and you have so many cultural groups that have been roughly in the same location for a really long time. Very specific differences in language, dialect and accents have emerged over time, and that's a fascinating side of language evolution.”

Reference

JR Goodman et al., ‘Evidence that cultural groups differ in their abilities to detect fake accents’, Evolutionary Human Sciences (2024). DOI: 10.1017/ehs.2024.36

People from Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin and the north-east of England are better at detecting someone imitating their accent than people from London and Essex, new research has found.

Cultural, political, or even violent conflict are likely to encourage people to strengthen their accents as they try to maintain social cohesion

Jonathan Goodman

Glen Bowman, cc licence via Flickr

Crowds on Newcastle Quayside for the Great North Run in 2013

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Removing pint glasses could reduce beer sales by almost 10%

cjb250 — Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:08:32 +0000

Alcohol consumption is the fifth largest contributor to premature death and disease worldwide. In 2016 it was estimated to have caused approximately 3 million deaths worldwide.

Professor Dame Theresa Marteau and colleagues at the Behaviour and Health Research Unit have shown previously that serving wine in smaller glasses is associated with a decrease in sales.

To see if this effect was seen with other alcoholic drinks, they approached venues in England and asked them to remove the pint serving size and instead offer two-thirds as the largest option for four weeks, with four-week non-intervention periods before and after as a comparison.

In a study published in PLOS Medicine, the team found that removing the pint reduced the daily mean volume of beer, lager and cider sold by 9.7%, although there was a slight increase in the amount of wine purchased, with one pub contributing to half of the increase of wine sales. They report that although customers did not complain, fewer than 1% of venues approached agreed to participate and the intervention involved only 12 establishments.

Professor Marteau said: “Alcohol harms our health, increasing the risk of injury and many diseases including heart disease, bowel, breast and liver cancers. While we may all enjoy a drink, the less we drink the better our health.

“As we’ve shown is the case with wine, removing the largest serving size for beer, lager and cider – in this case, the pint – could encourage people to drink less. This could be beneficial both to the nation’s health and the health of individuals.”

Further assessment is needed, particularly into whether people fully compensated for reduced beer consumption by drinking other alcoholic drinks, but the intervention merits consideration for inclusion in alcohol control policies. Smaller serving sizes could contribute towards reducing alcohol consumption across populations and thereby decrease the risk of seven cancers and other diseases.

Reference
Mantzari, E et al. Impact on beer sales of removing the pint serving size: An A-B-A reversal trial in pubs, bars, and restaurants in England. PLOS Medicine; 17 Sept 2024; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004442

Adapted from a press release by PLOS Medicine

Cambridge researchers have shown that reducing the serving size for beer, lager and cider reduces the volume of those drinks consumed in pubs, bars and restaurants, which could have wider public health benefits.

While we may all enjoy a drink, the less we drink the better our health

Theresa Marteau

ELEVATE (Pexels)

Barman handing a customer a pint of beer

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Red and processed meat consumption associated with higher type 2 diabetes risk

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:30:56 +0000

̽��ֱ��findings are published today in ̽��ֱ��Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

Global meat production has increased rapidly in recent decades and meat consumption exceeds dietary guidelines in many countries. Earlier research indicated that higher intakes of processed meat and unprocessed red meat are associated with an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes, but the results have been variable and not conclusive.

Poultry such as chicken, turkey, or duck is often considered to be an alternative to processed meat or unprocessed red meat, but fewer studies have examined the association between poultry consumption and type 2 diabetes.

To determine the association between consumption of processed meat, unprocessed red meat and poultry and type 2 diabetes, a team led by researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge used the global InterConnect project to analyse data from 31 study cohorts in 20 countries. Their extensive analysis took into account factors such as age, gender, health-related behaviours, energy intake and body mass index.

̽��ֱ��researchers found that the habitual consumption of 50 grams of processed meat a day - equivalent to 2 slices of ham - is associated with a 15% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the next 10 years. ̽��ֱ��consumption of 100 grams of unprocessed red meat a day - equivalent to a small steak - was associated with a 10% higher risk of type 2 diabetes.

Habitual consumption of 100 grams of poultry a day was associated with an 8% higher risk, but when further analyses were conducted to test the findings under different scenarios the association for poultry consumption became weaker, whereas the associations with type 2 diabetes for each of processed meat and unprocessed meat persisted.

Professor Nita Forouhi of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, and a senior author on the paper, said: “Our research provides the most comprehensive evidence to date of an association between eating processed meat and unprocessed red meat and a higher future risk of type 2 diabetes. It supports recommendations to limit the consumption of processed meat and unprocessed red meat to reduce type 2 diabetes cases in the population.

“While our findings provide more comprehensive evidence on the association between poultry consumption and type 2 diabetes than was previously available, the link remains uncertain and needs to be investigated further.”

InterConnect uses an approach that allows researchers to analyse individual participant data from diverse studies, rather than being limited to published results. This enabled the authors to include as many as 31 studies in this analysis, 18 of which had not previously published findings on the link between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes. By including this previously unpublished study data the authors considerably expanded the evidence base and reduced the potential for bias from the exclusion of existing research.

Lead author Dr Chunxiao Li, also of the MRC Epidemiology Unit, said: “Previous meta-analysis involved pooling together of already published results from studies on the link between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes, but our analysis examined data from individual participants in each study. This meant that we could harmonise the key data collected across studies, such as the meat intake information and the development of type 2 diabetes.

“Using harmonised data also meant we could more easily account for different factors, such as lifestyle or health behaviours, that may affect the association between meat consumption and diabetes.”

Professor Nick Wareham, Director of the MRC Epidemiology Unit, and a senior author on the paper said: “InterConnect enables us to study the risk factors for obesity and type 2 diabetes across populations in many different countries and continents around the world, helping to include populations that are under-represented in traditional meta-analyses.

“Most research studies on meat and type 2 diabetes have been conducted in USA and Europe, with some in East Asia. This research included additional studies from the Middle East, Latin America and South Asia, and highlighted the need for investment in research in these regions and in Africa.”

InterConnect was initially funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 602068.

Reference
Li, C et al. Meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: a federated meta-analysis of 1·97 million adults with 100,000 incident cases from 31 cohorts in 20 countries. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.; 20 August 2024

Adapted form a press release from the MRC Epidemiology Unit

Meat consumption, particularly consumption of processed meat and unprocessed red meat, is associated with a higher type 2 diabetes risk, an analysis of data from almost two million participants has found.

Our research supports recommendations to limit the consumption of processed meat and unprocessed red meat to reduce type 2 diabetes cases in the population

Nita Forouhi

Lauri Patterson

Preparing a Monte Cristo Sandwich, with Black Forest Ham

Yes

‘Far from clear’ new Alzheimer’s drugs will make a difference at a population level, say researchers

cjb250 — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 11:00:50 +0000

Writing in Alzheimer's & Dementia: ̽��ֱ��Journal of the Alzheimer's Association, the team from Cambridge Public Health argue that substantial challenges including the risk-benefit ratio, limited eligibility and high cost of roll-out will limit any benefits of these treatments.

Alzheimer’s disease is often quoted as causing 70% of the 55 million cases of dementia worldwide, though the definition of what constitutes the disease is hotly debated. One characteristic of Alzheimer’s is the build-up of clusters of misfolded proteins, one of these being a form of amyloid, leading to plaques in the brain. ̽��ֱ��cascade hypothesis, a dominant theory in the field, suggests that this triggers a series of processes which together lead to dementia symptoms.

Advances in developing treatments to reduce symptoms and slow down the progression in the early stages of Alzheimer’s has been slow. However, there has been recent excitement surrounding amyloid immunotherapy agents, drugs that harness the immune system to remove amyloid pathology.

Two completed phase III randomised controlled trials of amyloid immunotherapy reported statistically significant reductions in the rate of cognitive and functional decline compared to the placebo.

But as the Cambridge team point out, the effect sizes were small – small enough that a doctor would struggle to tell the difference between the average decline of a patient on the drug and another on placebo, after 18 months. ̽��ֱ��drugs were also associated with significant adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding; during the phase III trial of one agent, donanemab, there were also three deaths attributed to the treatment.

Crucially, there is little known about the long-term effects of the drugs beyond the 18 month trial periods. Long-term placebo-controlled trials, which would be needed to see if there is any clinically meaningful slowing of decline, are unlikely to be feasible where drugs are already approved.

Despite this, the US Food and Drug Administration has licensed two such drugs. ̽��ֱ��European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended rejecting one (lecanemab) predominantly on the grounds that the small effects seen do not outweigh the risk from side effects; it is reviewing the other. ̽��ֱ��UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is expected to take a decision on both drugs imminently.

Edo Richard, Professor of Neurology at Radboud ̽��ֱ�� Medical Centre in Nijmegen, ̽��ֱ��Netherlands, and co-author, said: “If these drugs are approved by regulators in the UK and Europe, and become available, it is understandable that some people with early Alzheimer’s will still want to try these drugs, given their despair living with this dreadful disease. But there is a lot of hyperbole around the reporting of these drugs, and significant effort will be needed to provide balanced information to patients to enable informed decisions.”

Press coverage of the drugs has implied they are suitable for anyone with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s. However, while the trials included those with ‘early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease’, it excluded those with other conditions that may have been contributing to their symptoms. Evidence suggests that the people in the trials represent less than 8% of those in the community with early Alzheimer’s disease. Those in the trials were up to 10 to 15 years younger than those typically presenting to health services with early symptoms.

Lead author Dr Sebastian Walsh, NIHR Doctoral Fellow in Public Health Medicine at Cambridge Public Health, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, added: “If approved, the drugs are likely to be relevant only for a relatively small cohort of Alzheimer’s patients, so potential recipients will need to undergo a range of assessments before being given access to the drugs. Plus, effect sizes seen in the trials are very small and the drugs will need be administered as early in the disease process as possible, when symptoms are mild – and people in these phases of disease can be hard to identify.”

̽��ֱ��resource requirements for rolling out such treatments are likely to be considerable. Even if approved for only a small proportion of Alzheimer’s patients, a much broader group of people will need to be assessed for eligibility, requiring rapid specialist clinical assessment and tests. ̽��ֱ��authors question whether this is the best use of these resources, given the strain health systems are already under. Support would also be required for the large number of Alzheimer’s patients (potentially as many as 92%) found to be ineligible. Those found to have insufficient amyloid to be eligible may then require follow-up assessments to determine eligibility in the future, with the further implications for services this would entail.

Professor Carol Brayne, Co-director of Cambridge Public Health, said: “Even in high-income countries, rolling out such types of treatments at scale is highly challenging, but most dementia occurs in low- and middle-income countries. Health systems in these countries are highly unlikely to have the resources required to offer these new drugs, even to a very narrow group.

“Other compelling evidence suggests that attention to inequalities and health experience across people’s lives could have greater impact on the rates of dementia in populations. Most dementia is more complicated than a single protein.”

̽��ֱ��team concludes that based on current evidence, it is far from clear whether amyloid immunotherapy can ever significantly reduce suffering caused by dementia at scale in the community, and we must continue to explore other approaches.

Professor Brayne added: “With an ageing population, we urgently need effective ways to support people living with dementia, but while the current amyloid immunotherapies may show a glint of promise for very selected groups, it’s clear these drugs will not address dementia risk at scale.”

Reference
Walsh, S et al. Considering challenges for the new Alzheimer’s drugs: clinical, population, and health system perspectives. Alz&Dem; 6 Aug 2024; DOI: 10.1002/alz.14108

Cambridge researchers have cast doubt on whether new amyloid immunotherapy drugs will have the desired effect of significantly reducing the impact of Alzheimer’s disease.

While the current amyloid immunotherapies may show a glint of promise for very selected groups, it’s clear these drugs will not address dementia risk at scale

Carol Brayne

Steven HWG (Unsplash)

Woman sitting in a wheelchair

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

AI predicts healthiness of food menus

cjb250 — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 08:00:27 +0000

Cambridge researchers have used artificial intelligence to predict the healthiness of café, takeaway and restaurant menus at outlets across Britain and used this information to map which of its local authorities have the most and least healthy food environments.

Removing largest wine glass serving reduces amount of wine sold in bars and pubs

cjb250 — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:00:10 +0000

While only modest, the finding could provide one way of nudging customers to drink less alcohol and have an impact at a population level, say the researchers.

Alcohol consumption is the fifth largest contributor to premature death and disease worldwide. In 2016 it was estimated to have caused approximately 3 million deaths worldwide.

There are many factors that influence how much we drink, from advertising to labelling to availability and cost. Previous research from the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at Cambridge has shown that even glass size can influence how much alcohol is consumed.

In research published today in PLOS Medicine, the Cambridge team carried out a study in 21 licensed premises (mainly pubs) in England to see whether removing their largest serving of wine by the glass for four weeks would have an impact on how much wine is consumed. Wine is the most commonly drunk alcoholic drink in the UK and Europe. Twenty of the premises completed the experiment as designed by the researchers and were included in the final analysis.

After adjusting for factors such as day of the week and total revenue, the researchers found that removing the largest wine glass serving led to an average (mean) decrease of 420ml of wine sold per day per venue – equating to a 7.6% decrease.

There was no evidence that sales of beer and cider increased, suggesting that people did not compensate for their reduced wine consumption by drinking more of these alcoholic drinks. There was also no evidence that it affected total daily revenues, implying that participating licensed premises did not lose money as a result of removing the largest serving size for glasses of wine, perhaps due to the higher profit margins of smaller serving sizes of wine. However, it is important to note that the study was not designed to provide statistically meaningful data on these points.

First author Dr Eleni Mantzari, from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, said: “It looks like when the largest serving size of wine by the glass was unavailable, people shifted towards the smaller options, but didn’t then drink the equivalent amount of wine.

“People tend to consume a specific number of ‘units’ – in this case glasses – regardless of portion size. So, someone might decide at the outset they’ll limit themselves to a couple of glasses of wine, and with less alcohol in each glass they drink less overall.”

Professor Dame Theresa Marteau, the study’s senior author and an Honorary Fellow at Christ’s College Cambridge, added: “It’s worth remembering that no level of alcohol consumption is considered safe for health, with even light consumption contributing to the development of many cancers. Although the reduction in the amount of wine sold at each premise was relatively small, even a small reduction could make a meaningful contribution to population health.”

Evidence suggests that the public prefer information-based interventions, such as health warning labels, to reductions in serving or package sizes. However, in this study, managers at just four of the 21 premises reported receiving complaints from customers.

̽��ֱ��researchers note that although the intervention would potentially be acceptable to pub or bar managers, given there was no evidence that it can result in a loss in revenue, a nationwide policy would likely be resisted by the alcohol industry given its potential to reduce sales of targeted drinks. Public support for such a policy would depend on its effectiveness and how clearly this was communicated.

̽��ֱ��research was funded by Wellcome.

Reference
Mantzari, E et al. Impact on wine sales of removing the largest serving size by the glass: an A-B-A reversal trial in 21 pubs, bars and restaurants in England. PLOS Medicine; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004313

Taking away the largest serving of wine by the glass – in most cases the 250ml option – led to an average reduction in the amount of wine sold at pubs and bars of just under 8%, new research led by a team at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge has discovered.

When the largest serving size of wine by the glass was unavailable, people shifted towards the smaller options, but didn’t then drink the equivalent amount of wine

Eleni Mantzari

hcdeharder (Pixabay)

Red and white wine in glasses

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

A habitable planet for healthy humans

plc32 — Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:28:42 +0000

Cambridge Zero symposium gathers researchers to examine the connections between planetary and public health.

UK ‘sugar tax’ linked to fall in child hospital admissions for tooth extraction

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Nov 2023 00:00:45 +0000

In a study published today in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, researchers at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit at Cambridge found that the levy may have reduced the number of under-18s having a tooth removed due to tooth decay by 12%. ̽��ֱ��largest reductions were in children aged up to nine years old.

Sugar-sweetened drinks account for around 30% of the added sugars in the diets of children aged one to three years and over a half by late adolescence. In England, nearly 90% of all tooth extractions in young children are due to decay, resulting in around 60,000 missed school days a year.

̽��ֱ��World Health Organization has recommended a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks to reduce sugar consumption, which more than 50 countries have implemented. In March 2016, the UK Government announced a soft drinks industry levy or ‘sugar tax’, which aimed to reduce sugar intake by encouraging drinks manufacturers to reformulate their products. ̽��ֱ��levy was implemented in April 2018.

While the relationship between sugar-sweetened drinks and tooth decay is well established, no studies have used real-world data to examine the relationship between the levy and dental health.

To address this, the researchers analysed hospital admissions data for tooth extractions due to tooth decay in children up to 18 years old in England from January 2014 to February 2020. They studied trends overall as well as broken down by neighbourhood deprivation and age groups.

Overall, in children aged 18 and under, there was an absolute reduction in hospital admissions of 3.7 per 100,000 population per month compared to if the soft drinks levy had not happened. This equated to a relative reduction of 12% compared to if the levy had not been introduced.

Based on a population of nearly 13 million children in England in 2020, the researchers estimated that the reduction avoided 5,638 admissions for tooth decay. Reductions in hospital admissions were greatest in younger children aged up to four years and among children aged five to nine years, with absolute reductions of 6.5 and 3.3 per 100,000 respectively.

Dr Nina Rogers from the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, the study’s first author, said: “This is an important finding given that children aged five to nine are the most likely to be admitted to hospital for tooth extractions under general anaesthesia.”

No significant changes in admission rates for tooth decay were seen in older age groups of 10–14 years and 15–18 years. However, reductions in hospital admissions were seen in children living in most areas regardless of deprivation.

As this is an observational study and because there was no comparable control group, the researchers cannot say definitively that the soft drinks levy caused this reduction in tooth decay. They acknowledge that other national interventions such as the sugar reduction programme and compulsory nutrition labels alongside the levy may have raised public awareness of sugar consumption and influenced buying habits.

Nevertheless, they conclude that their study “provides evidence of possible benefits to children’s health from the UK soft drinks industry levy beyond obesity which it was initially developed to address.”

Professor David Conway, co-author, and professor of dental public health at ̽��ֱ�� of Glasgow added: “Tooth extractions under general anaesthesia is among the most common reason for children to be admitted to hospital across the UK. This study shows that ambitious public health policies such as a tax on sugary drinks can impact on improving child oral health.”

̽��ֱ��research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Reference
Rogers, N T et al. Estimated impact of the UK soft drinks industry levy on childhood hospital admissions for carious tooth extractions: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ Nutrition Prevention & Health; 14 Nov 2023; DOI:10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000714

Adapted from a press release from the BMJ.

̽��ֱ��UK soft drinks industry levy introduced in 2018 may have saved more than 5,500 hospital admissions for tooth extractions, according to an analysis by researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

This is an important finding given that children aged five to nine are the most likely to be admitted to hospital for tooth extractions under general anaesthesia

Nina Rogers

Michal Jarmoluk (Pixabay)

Child receiving dental treatment

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain