A total of 1800 in-school adolescents participated in this study, with 99.0% response rate. The mean age of respondents in this study across both rural and urban areas was 14.73±1.816years. The highest number of respondents (55.2% in the rural, and 62.2% in the urban) were in the age group 14-16 years (mid-adolescents), while the lowest were in the age group 17-19 years (late adolescents). This was statistically significant (t=16.753; p =0.001). There were more females (51.8% and 53.3%), than male respondents (48.2% and 46.7%), for rural and urban groups respectively.
Table 1: Pattern of Sugar Sweetened Beverage consumption of respondents.
Variables
|
Location (%)
|
Test statistics
|
p value
|
Rural
|
Urban
|
Lifetime SSB consumption
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
862(96.0)
|
771(85.9)
|
|
|
No
|
36(4.0)
|
127(14.1)
|
χ2= 55.875
|
0.001*
|
Current SSB consumption
|
(n-862)
|
(n-771)
|
|
|
Yes
|
669(77.6)
|
575(74.6)
|
|
|
No
|
193(22.4)
|
196(25.4)
|
χ2= 2.061
|
0.151
|
Volume of SSB consumed
|
|
|
|
|
Low
|
424(49.2)
|
409(53.0)
|
χ2= 15.687
|
0.001*
|
Moderate
|
275(31.9)
|
271(35.1)
|
|
|
High
|
163(18.9)
|
92(11.8)
|
|
|
Mean (bottle/day)
|
2.03±2.54
|
1.77±2.28
|
t= 2.235
|
0.026*
|
Frequency of consumption
|
|
|
|
|
Infrequent
|
693(77.2)
|
612(68.2)
|
χ2= 56.136
|
0.001*
|
Frequent
|
169(18.8)
|
159(17.7)
|
|
|
Type of SSB consumed
|
|
|
|
|
Carbonated soft drink
|
512(59.4)
|
464(60.2)
|
χ2= 15.083
|
0.005*
|
Fruit drinks
|
161(18.7)
|
113(14.7)
|
|
|
Sports/energy drink
|
107(12.4)
|
81(10.2)
|
|
|
Sweetened milk
|
77(8.9)
|
102(13.2)
|
|
|
Caffeinated drinks
|
5(0.6)
|
11(1.4)
|
|
|
Mix SSBs with
Tramadol
Alcohol
Cannabis
None of the above
|
106(12.3)
47(5.5)
26(3.0)
683(79.2)
|
68(8.8)
31(4.0)
27(3.5)
645(83.7)
|
χ2= 7.640
|
0.054
|
Time of SSB consumption
First thing in the morning
Any time of the day
With meals
At social gatherings
Between meals
|
76(8.8)
599(69.5)
94(10.9)
52(6.0)
41(4.8)
|
78(10.1)
495(64.2)
121(15.7)
44(5.7)
33(4.3)
|
χ2= 9.794
|
0.044*
|
Table 1 shows the pattern of SSB consumption among in-school adolescents across both groups. The lifetime prevalence of SSB consumption was higher in the rural (96%), than in urban area (85.9%). This is significantly associated with the location of respondents (χ2=55.875; p =0.001). Similarly, the current prevalence of SSB consumption was higher in the rural (77.6%), than in urban area (74.6%).
Most respondents are low consumers, consuming 350ml or less of SSBs in a typical day. The volume of SSBs consumed is statistically significant with location of in-school respondents. (χ2=15.687; p =0.003). Frequency of consumption of SSBs was statistically significant with the location of respondents (χ2=56.136; p =0.001), however majority of respondents across both groups were infrequent consumers.
Carbonated drinks were the commonest SSBs consumed (59.4%) (60.2%), across rural and urban location. Similarly, caffeine containing SSBs were the least consumed. A small proportion of respondents across the two groups mixed their SSBs with drugs and alcohol. About 12.3% and 8.8% mixed their SSBs with tramadol, 5.5% and 4% mixed their SSBs with alcohol and, 3% and 3.5% respondents mixed their SSBs with cannabis in the rural and urban geographical location respectively.
For majority of the respondents across the rural and urban groups, sugar sweetened beverages can be consumed at any time of the day (69.5% and 64.2%), though more of the respondents in the urban group reported taking SSBs first thing in the morning (10.1%). The respondents who took SSBs with meals were more in the urban group, (15.7%) than those in the rural group (10.9%).
Table 2: Influencers of Sugar sweetened beverage consumption of respondents.
Variables
|
Location (%)
|
χ2
|
p value
|
Rural (n-862)
|
Urban (n=771)
|
Consumption is prompted by
Thirst
Satisfy cravings
Performance enhancer
Peer pressure
|
349(40.5)
392(45.5)
82(9.5)
39(4.5)
|
347(45.0)
326(42.3)
69(8.9)
29(3.8)
|
3.603
|
0.308
|
Advertisement affect preference
Yes
No
|
374(43.4)
488(56.6)
|
328(42.5)
443(57.5)
|
0.119
|
0.730
|
School canteens sell SSBs
Yes
No
|
809(90.1)
89(9.9)
|
836(93.1)
62(6.9)
|
5.271
|
0.022
|
Most preferred SSB
|
|
|
|
|
Carbonated soft drink
|
354(41.1)
|
326(42.3)
|
6.921
|
0.140
|
Sports/Energy drink
|
110(12.8)
|
68(8.8)
|
|
|
Sweetened milk
|
161(18.7)
|
160(20.8)
|
|
|
Caffeinated drinks
|
23(2.7)
|
22(2.9)
|
|
|
Fruit drinks
|
214(24.8)
|
195(25.3)
|
|
|
Reason for preference
|
|
|
|
|
Taste
|
627(72.7)
|
584(75.7)
|
4.546
|
0.337
|
Affordability
|
98(11.4)
|
73(9.5)
|
|
|
Brand loyalty
|
66(7.7)
|
51(6.6)
|
|
|
Availability
|
22(2.6)
|
27(3.5)
|
|
|
Stimulant effect
|
49(5.7)
|
36(4.7)
|
|
|
*Statistically significant
Table 2 shows factors influencing SSB consumption in respondents. Consumption of Sugar sweetened beverage is prompted by thirst (45%) in majority of respondents in the urban location, while most adolescents in rural areas consume SSBs to satisfy their cravings (45.5%). A small proportion of respondents reported effects of peer pressure as their reason for consumption of SSBs across the rural and urban geographical locations (4.5% and 3.8%)
Most of the respondent across the geographical location claimed advertisement does not affect their preference for SSBs consumption. Despite the fact that SSBs is sold in a large proportion of the schools of respondents, both in rural (90.1%) and urban (93.1%) groups, it was not statistically significant.
Carbonated soft drink was the most preferred choice of SSBs (41.1%) (42.3%), across rural and urban location, while caffeine containing SSBs were the least preferred across the two groups. The reasons for their preference were diverse across both groups; ranging from taste of SSBs (72.7%) (75.7%) as the commonest; to availability (2.6%) (3.5%) as the least common reason for SSBs preference in the rural and urban geographical location respectively.
Table 3: Association between socio- demographic characteristics and sugar sweetened beverage consumption among respondents.
|
Rural
|
|
Urban
|
|
Variables
|
Life-time Consumption
|
Test statistics
|
Life-time Consumption
|
Test statistics
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Age
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-14
|
409(47.4)
|
11(30.6)
|
364(85.6)
|
61(48.0)
|
|
|
15-19
|
453(52.6)
|
25(69.4)
|
0.047*
|
407(52.8)
|
66(52.0)
|
0.864
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
411(47.7)
|
22(61.1)
|
356(46.2)
|
63(49.6)
|
|
|
Female
|
451(52.3)
|
14(38.9)
|
0.114
|
415(53.8)
|
64(50.4)
|
0..472
|
Religion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christianity
|
616(71.5)
|
22(61.1)
|
|
516(66.9)
|
73(57.5)
|
|
Islam
|
225(26.1)
|
12(33.3)
|
0.284
|
248(32.2)
|
52(40.9)
|
0.106
|
Traditional
|
21(2.4)
|
2(5.6)
|
|
7(0.9)
|
2(1.6)
|
|
Ethnicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yoruba
|
789(91.5)
|
31(86.1)
|
694(90.0)
|
115(90.6)
|
|
|
Hausa
|
8(0.9)
|
1(2.8)
|
0.404
|
17(2.2)
|
7(5.5)
|
0.030*
|
Igbo
|
58(6.7)
|
3(8.3)
|
|
54(7.0)
|
3(2.4)
|
|
Others
|
7(0.8)
|
1(2.8)
|
|
6(0.8)
|
2(1.6)
|
|
Father’s occupation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional/skilled
|
416(48.3)
|
15(41.7)
|
445(57.7)
|
58(45.7)
|
|
|
Semi-skilled
|
72(8.4)
|
2(5.6)
|
0.650
|
91(11.8)
|
16(12.6)
|
0.004*
|
Unemployed
|
32(3.7)
|
1(2.8)
|
|
23(3.0)
|
11(8.7)
|
|
Trading/Unskilled
|
342(39.7)
|
18(50.0)
|
|
212(27.5)
|
127(100.0)
|
|
Mother’s occupation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional/skilled
|
278(32.3)
|
5(13.9)
|
271(35.1)
|
40(31.5)
|
|
|
Semi-skilled
|
49(5.7)
|
1(2.8)
|
0.075
|
56(7.3)
|
13(10.2)
|
0.035*
|
Unemployed
|
47(5.5)
|
2(5.6)
|
|
48(6.2)
|
16(12.6)
|
|
Trading/Unskilled
|
488(56.6)
|
28(77.8)
|
|
396(51.4)
|
58(45.7)
|
|
Father’s education
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No formal
|
45(5.2)
|
4(11.1)
|
42(5.4)
|
8(6.3)
|
|
|
Primary
|
43(5.0)
|
4(11.1)
|
0.060
|
45(5.8)
|
9(7.1)
|
0.608
|
Secondary
|
437(50.7)
|
20(55.6)
|
|
301(39.0)
|
55(43.3)
|
|
Tertiary
|
337(39.1)
|
8(22.2)
|
|
383(49.7)
|
55(43.3)
|
|
Mother’s education
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No formal
|
40(4.6)
|
5(13.6)
|
34(4.4)
|
10(7.9)
|
|
|
Primary
|
46(5.3)
|
3(8.3)
|
0.003*
|
49(6.4)
|
5(3.9)
|
0.042*
|
Secondary
|
457(53.0)
|
24(66.7)
|
|
325(42.2)
|
65(51.2)
|
|
Tertiary
|
319(37.0)
|
4(11.1)
|
|
363(47.1)
|
47(37.0)
|
|
Household size
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3
|
231(26.8)
|
13(36.1)
|
181(23.5)
|
37(29.1)
|
|
|
4-6
|
460(53.4)
|
13(36.1)
|
0.126
|
498(64.6)
|
77(60.6)
|
0.373
|
≥ 7
|
171(19.8)
|
10(27.8)
|
|
92(11.9)
|
13(10.2)
|
|
Number of children
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-4
|
526(61.0)
|
17(47.2)
|
577(74.8)
|
89(70.1)
|
|
|
≥5
|
336(39.0)
|
19(52.8)
|
0.097
|
194(25.2)
|
38(29.9)
|
0.256
|
Responsible for care
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both parents
|
747(86.7)
|
33(91.7)
|
|
669(86.8)
|
104(81.9)
|
|
Single Parents
|
85(9.9)
|
8(8.3)
|
0.697
|
87(11.3)
|
19(15.0)
|
0.189
|
Brother/ Sister
|
9(1.0)
|
0(0.0)
|
|
5(0.6)
|
0(0.0)
|
|
Guardian
|
21(2.4)
|
0(0.0)
|
|
10(1.3)
|
4(3.1)
|
|
Tables 3 shows association between socio- demographic characteristics and Sugar Sweetened Beverage consumption among respondents. Consumption of SSB was significantly associated with age (p=0.047), and mother’s occupation (p=0.003), among respondents in the rural area; and ethnicity(p=0.030), father’s occupation(p=0.004), and mother’s education(p=0.042), among respondents in the urban area. Other socio-demographic characteristics like gender, religion, father’s education, and household size, were not significantly associated with consumption of SSBs.
Table 4: Association between socio- demographic characteristics and volume of Sugar Sweetened Beverage consumption
Variables
|
Rural (%)
|
Urban (%)
|
Volume of SSB consumed
|
Test statistics
|
Volume of SSB consumed
|
Test statistics
|
Low N=424
|
Moderate
N=275
|
High
N=163
|
Low
N=409
|
Moderate
N=270
|
High
N=92
|
Age
10-13
14-16
17-19
|
91(21.5)
235(55.4)
98(23.1)
|
39(14.2)
154(56.0)
82(29.8)
|
10(6.1)
87(53.4)
66(40.5)
|
0.001*
|
135(33.0)
255(62.3)
19(4.6)
|
84(31.1)
171(63.3)
15(5.6)
|
24(26.4)
58(63.7)
9(9.9)
|
0.312
|
Gender
Male
Female
|
199(46.9)
225(53.1)
|
122(44.4)
153(55.6)
|
90(55.2)
73(44.8)
|
0.081
|
188(46.0)
221(54.0)
|
130(48.0)
141(52.0)
|
38(41.8)
53(58.2)
|
10.585
|
Religion
Christianity
Islam
Traditional
|
315(74.3)
102(24.1)
7(1.7)
|
197(71.6)
74(26.9)
4(1.5)
|
104(63.8)
49(30.1)
10(6.1)
|
0.005*
|
287(70.2)
117(28.6)
5(1.2)
|
156(57.6)
113(41.7)
2(0.7)
|
73(80.2)
18(19.8)
0(0.0)
|
0.001*
|
Ethnicity
Yoruba
Hausa
Igbo
Others
|
389(91.7)
6(1.4)
26(6.1)
3(0.7)
|
244(88.7)
2(0.7)
27(9.8)
2(0.7)
|
156(95.7)
0(0.0)
5(3.1)
2(1.2)
|
0.086
|
357(87.3)
11(2.7)
37(9.0)
4(1.0)
|
252(93.0)
4(1.5)
13(4.8)
2(0.7)
|
85(93.4)
2(2.2)
4(4.4)
0(0.0)
|
0.182
|
Father’s Occupation
Professional/skilled
Semi-skilled
Unemployed
Trading
Unskilled
|
207(48.8)
36(8.5)
13(3.1)
164(38.7)
4(0.9)
|
137(49.8)
24(8.7)
11(4.0)
103(37.5)
0(0.0)
|
72(44.2)
12(7.4)
8(4.9)
70(42.9)
1(0.6)
|
0.542
|
240(58.7)
47(11.5)
15(3.7)
105(25.7)
2(0.5)
|
149(55.0)
29(10.7)
7(2.6)
82(30.3)
4(1.5)
|
56(61.5)
15(16.5)
1(1.1)
16(17.6)
3(3.3)
|
0.077
|
Mother’s Occupation
Professional/skilled
Semi-skilled
Unemployed
Trading
Unskilled
|
140(33.0)
17(4.0)
21(5.0)
246(58.0)
0(0.0)
|
88(32.0)
21(7.6)
13(4.7)
153(55.6)
0(0.0)
|
50(30.7)
11(6.7)
13(8.0)
88(54.0)
1(0.6)
|
0.239
|
145(35.5)
25(6.1)
17(4.2)
218(53.3)
4(1.0)
|
101(37.3)
23(8.5)
21(7.7)
125(46.1)
1(0.4)
|
25(27.5)
8(8.8)
10(11.0)
48(52.7)
0(0.0)
|
0.073
|
Father’s Education
No formal
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
|
18(4.2)
30(7.1)
196(46.2)
180(42.5)
|
14(5.1)
9(3.3)
152(55.3)
100(36.4)
|
13(8.0)
4(2.5)
89(54.6)
57(35.0)
|
0.012*
|
16(3.9)
21(5.1)
155(37.9)
217(53.1)
|
19(7.0)
22(8.1)
100(36.9)
130(48.0)
|
7(7.7)
2(2.2)
46(50.5)
36(39.6)
|
0.019*
|
Mother’s Education
No formal
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
|
22(5.2)
21(5.0)
216(50.9)
165(38.9)
|
12(4.4)
15(5.5)
151(54.9)
97(35.3)
|
6(3.7)
10(6.1)
90(55.2)
57(35.0)
|
0.872
|
8(2.0)
23(5.6)
176(43.0)
202(49.4)
|
19(7.0)
20(7.4)
106(39.1)
126(46.5)
|
7(7.7)
6(6.6)
43(47.3)
35(38.5)
|
0.014*
|
|
Household size
1-3
4-6
≥7
|
105(24.8)
235(55.4)
84(19.8)
|
82(29.8)
137(49.8)
56(20.4)
|
44(27.0)
88(54.0)
31(19.0)
|
0.612
|
95(23.2)
261(63.8)
53(13.0)
|
73(26.9)
169(62.4)
29(10.7)
|
13(14.3)
68(74.7)
10(11.0)
|
0.129
|
|
Number of children
1-4
≥5
|
265(62.5)
159(37.5)
|
168(61.1)
107(38.9)
|
93(57.1)
70(42.9)
|
0.480
|
309(75.6)
100(24.4)
|
200(73.8)
71(26.2)
|
68(74.7)
23(25.3)
|
0.876
|
|
Responsibility for upkeep
Both parents
Single parents
Brother/Sister
Guardian
|
378(89.2)
32(7.5)
5(1.2)
9(2.1)
|
235(85.5)
34(12.4)
0(0.0)
6(2.2)
|
134(82.2)
19(11.7)
4(2.5)
6(3.7)
|
0.049*
|
357(87.3)
45(11.0)
2(0.5)
5(1.2)
|
238(87.8)
29(10.7)
0(0.0)
4(1.5)
|
74(81.3)
13(14.3)
3(3.3)
1(1.1)
|
0.130
|
*Statistically significant
Tables 4 shows the association between socio- demographic characteristics and volume of SSB consumption among respondents. The volume of SSB consumption was significantly associated with the respondents’ age groups, (p<0.001), religion (p<0.001), fathers’ education(p<0.012), mothers’ education(p<0.014), and person responsible for respondents’ upkeep(p<0.049). Other socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, occupation of parents, household size, and number of children in household were not significantly associated with volume of SSB consumption.
Table 5: Predictors of Sugar sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents.
|
Rural
|
|
Urban
|
|
Variables
|
AOR(95%CI)
|
Adj. P value
|
AOR(95%CI)
|
Adj. P value
|
Age
|
|
|
|
|
10-14
|
0.47(0.23-0.99)
|
0.047*
|
0.99(0.67-1.45)
|
0.943
|
15-19
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Ethnicity
|
|
|
|
|
Yoruba
|
0.36(0.04-3.40)
|
0.371
|
0.41(0.08-2.14)
|
0.287
|
Hausa
|
0.70(0.03-14.68)
|
0.818
|
0.77(0.11-5.20)
|
0.785
|
Igbo
|
0.45(0.03-5.45)
|
0.530
|
0.12(0.02-0.95)
|
0.044*
|
Others
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Father’s occupation
|
|
|
|
|
Professional/skilled
|
1.19(0.53-2.69)
|
0.667
|
0.69(0.43-1.12)
|
0.131
|
Semi-skilled
|
0.74(0.15-3.78)
|
0.719
|
0.76(0.39-1.50)
|
0.431
|
Unemployed
|
0.65(0.08-5.60)
|
0.696
|
2.27(0.98-5.23)
|
0.055
|
Trading/Unskilled
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Mother’s occupation
|
|
|
|
|
Professional/skilled
|
0.41(0.14-1.20)
|
0.102
|
1.23(0.76-1.99)
|
0.393
|
Semi-skilled
|
0.42(0.05-3.83)
|
0.444
|
1.84(0.90-3.78)
|
0.095
|
Unemployed
|
0.50(0.10-2.50)
|
0.401
|
1.83(0.91-3.69)
|
0.089
|
Trading/Unskilled
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Father’s education
|
|
|
|
|
No formal educ.
|
0.78(0.14-4.42)
|
0.780
|
0.78(0.26-2.34)
|
|
Primary Education
|
1.78(0.44-7.16)
|
0.420
|
1.17(0.47-2.94)
|
0.733
|
Secondary Education
|
0.85(0.32-2.28)
|
0.752
|
1.04(0.62-1.74)
|
0.872
|
Tertiary Education
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Mother’s education
|
|
|
|
|
No formal educ.
|
8.80(1.35-57.41)
|
0.023*
|
1.76(0.61-5.07)
|
0.295
|
Primary Education
|
4.13(0.73-23.43)
|
0.110
|
0.59(0.20-1.760)
|
0.346
|
Secondary Education
|
3.36(0.97-11.64)
|
0.056
|
1.40(0..84-2.37)
|
0.196
|
Tertiary Education
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
*Statistically significant
Tables 5 shows predictors of sugar sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents in the rural and urban groups. Age (AOR=0.47, 95%CI=0.23-0.99) and mother’s education (AOR=8.80, 95%CI=1.35-57.41) remained statistically significant with sugar sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents in the rural area, while only ethnicity (AOR=0.12, 95%CI=0.02-0.95) was significantly associated with sugar sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents in the urban area.