Changes in Dental Outcomes After Implementation of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax.
Changes in Dental Outcomes After Implementation of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax.
复制标题
实施费城饮料税后牙科结果的变化。
DOI：
10.1016/j.amepre.2023.02.009
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Roberto,ChristinaA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Petimar,Joshua;Gibson,LauraA;Wolff,MarkS;Mitra,Nandita;Corby,Patricia;Hettinger,Gary;Gregory,EmilyF;Edmondson,Emma;Block,JasonP;Roberto,ChristinaA
饮料税与含糖饮料销售和消费的下降有关，但很少有研究评估这些税收与健康结果的关联。这项研究分析了实施费城甜味饮料税后蛀牙的变化。从2014年到2019年，我们获得了83，260名居住在费城和对照地区的患者的电子牙科记录数据。差异中差异分析比较了费城和对照组患者在税收实施之前（2014年1月至2016年12月）和之后（2019年1月至2019年12月）的新龋齿，缺失和填充牙齿的数量。在年龄较大的儿童/成人（年龄≥15岁）和年龄较小的儿童（年龄<15岁）中进行分析。按医疗补助状态分层的亚组分析。结果在费城实施税收政策后，大龄儿童/成人（差异中差异=-0.02，95%CI =-0.08，0.03）或低龄儿童（差异中差异=0.07，95%CI =-0.08，0.23）的新龋、缺和补牙数量没有变化。同样，新的腐烂、缺失和填充表面的数量也没有税后变化。然而，在医疗补助患者的横断面样本中，在年龄较大的儿童/成人中实施税收后，新的龋齿，缺失和填充牙齿的数量较低（差异中的差异=-0.18，95% CI=-0.34，-0.03; -22%下降）和年幼儿童（差中差=-0.22，95%CI =-0.46，0.01;-30%的下降），与新的腐烂，失踪，和填充Surfaces.ConclusionsThe费城饮料税的数量类似的结果是没有减少蛀牙在一般人群中，但它与接受医疗补助的成人和儿童的蛀牙减少有关，这表明低收入人群的潜在健康益处。
IntroductionBeverage taxes are associated with declines in sugar-sweetened beverage sales and consumption, but few studies have evaluated the associations of these taxes with health outcomes. This study analyzed changes in dental decay after the implementation of the Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax.MethodsElectronic dental record data were obtained on 83,260 patients living in Philadelphia and control areas from 2014 to 2019. Difference-in-differences analyses compared the number of new Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth with that of new Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces before (January 2014–December 2016) and after (January 2019–December 2019) tax implementation in Philadelphia and control patients. Analyses were conducted in older children/adults (aged ≥15 years) and younger children (aged <15 years). Subgroup analyses stratified by Medicaid status. Analyses were conducted in 2022.ResultsThe number of new Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth did not change after tax implementation in Philadelphia in panel analyses of older children/adults (difference-in-differences= –0.02, 95% CI= –0.08, 0.03) or younger children (difference-in-differences=0.07, 95% CI= –0.08, 0.23). There were similarly no post-tax changes in the number of new Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces. However, in cross-sectional samples of patients on Medicaid, the number of new Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth was lower after tax implementation in older children/adults (difference-in-differences= –0.18, 95% CI= –0.34, –0.03; –22% decline) and younger children (difference-in-differences= –0.22, 95% CI= –0.46, 0.01; –30% decline), with similar results for number of new Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces.ConclusionsThe Philadelphia beverage tax was not associated with reduced tooth decay in the general population, but it was associated with reduced tooth decay in adults and children on Medicaid, suggesting potential health benefits for low-income populations.