Student Opposition to University Pouring Rights Contracts

Brittany Lemmon MS , Astrid Montuclard BS , Sarah E. Solar BS , Emily Roberts MS , Thomas W. Joo JD , Jennifer Falbe ScD, MPH
{"title":"Student Opposition to University Pouring Rights Contracts","authors":"Brittany Lemmon MS ,&nbsp;Astrid Montuclard BS ,&nbsp;Sarah E. Solar BS ,&nbsp;Emily Roberts MS ,&nbsp;Thomas W. Joo JD ,&nbsp;Jennifer Falbe ScD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.focus.2024.100190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The majority of large public universities have exclusive pouring rights contracts with beverage companies that produce and market sugar-sweetened beverages. Pouring rights contracts contain provisions that conflict with recommendations from major public health organizations that institutions reduce sugar-sweetened beverage availability, marketing, and consumption. This study assessed the following among students at 3 public universities: student perception of pouring rights contracts (the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts), the association between student socioeconomic characteristics and perception of pouring rights contracts, student estimates of pouring rights contract revenue, and the association between student pouring rights contract revenue estimates and perception of pouring rights contracts. To contextualize results, actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues was estimated.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross-sectional exploratory study was conducted among a convenience sample of 1,311 undergraduate sugar-sweetened beverages–consuming students recruited from 3 large and diverse public universities in Northern California. On an online questionnaire, undergraduate students indicated the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts on a 10-point scale (oppose=1–5, favor=6–10) and provided a numeric estimate of the percentage of total university revenue they thought their university's pouring rights contract generated. Regression models were used to analyze differences in perception of pouring rights contracts by student socioeconomic characteristics and estimates of university revenues generated by pouring rights contracts. In addition, pouring rights contracts and financial reports were obtained from the 3 universities to estimate actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues. Survey data were collected between August and November 2018 and analyzed in August 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A large majority of students (81%) opposed pouring rights contracts, and the opposition did not significantly differ by student socioeconomic characteristics, including by levels of food security, need-based financial aid, participation in federal food assistance or healthcare programs, parental education, or parental income (all <em>p</em>s&gt;0.14). The median student estimate for pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total university revenue was 10%. In contrast, the estimated actual annual revenue generated from the pouring rights contracts ranged from 0.01% to 0.04% at these schools. Revenue estimates were not significantly associated with participants’ opposition or favoring of pouring rights contracts (<em>p</em>=0.65).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A large majority of students opposed pouring rights contracts, and this opposition was similar regardless of student socioeconomic characteristics or student estimates of pouring rights contract revenues. Students markedly overestimated (by &gt;100–1,000-fold) the percentage of university revenue that came from pouring rights contracts. University administration should consider student views on pouring rights contracts when deciding whether to exit or continue with pouring rights contracts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72142,"journal":{"name":"AJPM focus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773065424000099/pdfft?md5=9dcb21e521501eec1aacef0f5aee07d8&pid=1-s2.0-S2773065424000099-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJPM focus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773065424000099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The majority of large public universities have exclusive pouring rights contracts with beverage companies that produce and market sugar-sweetened beverages. Pouring rights contracts contain provisions that conflict with recommendations from major public health organizations that institutions reduce sugar-sweetened beverage availability, marketing, and consumption. This study assessed the following among students at 3 public universities: student perception of pouring rights contracts (the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts), the association between student socioeconomic characteristics and perception of pouring rights contracts, student estimates of pouring rights contract revenue, and the association between student pouring rights contract revenue estimates and perception of pouring rights contracts. To contextualize results, actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues was estimated.

Methods

A cross-sectional exploratory study was conducted among a convenience sample of 1,311 undergraduate sugar-sweetened beverages–consuming students recruited from 3 large and diverse public universities in Northern California. On an online questionnaire, undergraduate students indicated the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts on a 10-point scale (oppose=1–5, favor=6–10) and provided a numeric estimate of the percentage of total university revenue they thought their university's pouring rights contract generated. Regression models were used to analyze differences in perception of pouring rights contracts by student socioeconomic characteristics and estimates of university revenues generated by pouring rights contracts. In addition, pouring rights contracts and financial reports were obtained from the 3 universities to estimate actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues. Survey data were collected between August and November 2018 and analyzed in August 2022.

Results

A large majority of students (81%) opposed pouring rights contracts, and the opposition did not significantly differ by student socioeconomic characteristics, including by levels of food security, need-based financial aid, participation in federal food assistance or healthcare programs, parental education, or parental income (all ps>0.14). The median student estimate for pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total university revenue was 10%. In contrast, the estimated actual annual revenue generated from the pouring rights contracts ranged from 0.01% to 0.04% at these schools. Revenue estimates were not significantly associated with participants’ opposition or favoring of pouring rights contracts (p=0.65).

Conclusions

A large majority of students opposed pouring rights contracts, and this opposition was similar regardless of student socioeconomic characteristics or student estimates of pouring rights contract revenues. Students markedly overestimated (by >100–1,000-fold) the percentage of university revenue that came from pouring rights contracts. University administration should consider student views on pouring rights contracts when deciding whether to exit or continue with pouring rights contracts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学生反对大学浇灌权合同
导言:大多数大型公立大学都与生产和销售含糖饮料的饮料公司签订了独家倾倒权合同。倾倒权合同中的一些条款与主要公共卫生组织提出的减少含糖饮料供应、营销和消费的建议相冲突。本研究对 3 所公立大学的学生进行了以下评估:学生对倾倒权合同的看法(他们赞成或反对倾倒权合同的程度)、学生社会经济特征与倾倒权合同看法之间的关联、学生对倾倒权合同收入的估计,以及学生对倾倒权合同收入的估计与倾倒权合同看法之间的关联。为了使研究结果更加具体化,我们还估算了实际倾倒权合同收入占总收入的百分比。研究方法:我们从加利福尼亚州北部三所大型公立大学招募了 1311 名消费含糖饮料的本科生,对他们进行了横截面探索性研究。在一份在线问卷中,本科生以 10 分制(反对=1-5 分,赞成=6-10 分)来表示他们赞成或反对倾倒权合同的程度,并提供了他们认为其所在大学的倾倒权合同所产生的收入占大学总收入的百分比。我们使用回归模型分析了学生社会经济特征对倾倒权合同看法的差异,以及倾倒权合同为大学带来的收入估算。此外,还从三所大学获得了倾倒权合同和财务报告,以估算实际倾倒权合同收入占总收入的百分比。调查数据于 2018 年 8 月至 11 月间收集,并于 2022 年 8 月进行分析。结果绝大多数学生(81%)反对倾倒权合同,不同学生的社会经济特征,包括食品安全水平、基于需求的财政援助、参与联邦食品援助或医疗保健计划、父母教育或父母收入(所有 ps>0.14),反对意见没有显著差异。学生估计的倾倒权合同收入占大学总收入比例的中位数为 10%。相比之下,这些学校每年从倾倒权合同中获得的实际收入估计值从 0.01% 到 0.04% 不等。收入估算与参与者反对或赞成倾倒权合同没有明显关联(P=0.65)。结论绝大多数学生反对倾倒权合同,这种反对与学生的社会经济特征或学生对倾倒权合同收入的估算无关。学生们明显高估了倾倒权合同在大学收入中所占的比例(100-1000 倍)。大学管理部门在决定退出还是继续使用倾倒权合同时,应该考虑学生对倾倒权合同的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJPM focus
AJPM focus Health, Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board and Journal Information Work-Related Factors Associated With Psychological Distress Among Grocery Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lifestyle Differences in the Metabolic Comorbidity Score of Adult Population From South Asian Countries: A Cross-Sectional Study Corrigendum: Associations of Historical Redlining With BMI and Waist Circumference in Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Physicians’ Self-Reported Knowledge and Behaviors Related to Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain and Diagnosing Opioid Use Disorder, DocStyles, 2020
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1