ArticleBMC public health2025
An application of the augmented synthetic control method within a target trial framework: the case of the soda tax policy in California.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Fiscal Policy for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages on Reducing the Burden of Disease and Healthcare Costs in Brazil: A Simulation Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Market and welfare effects of a nationwide sugar-sweetened beverage tax in the U.S.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is associated with increased obesity risk. One microeconomic intervention approach that has been studied is the increase of the cost of SSBs through SSB taxes. This study aims to apply the augmented synthetic control method (ASCM) within a target trial framework to estimate the impact of a 1-cent-per-ounce SSB tax on obesity prevalence in California.
methodsWe used 2012-2020 data from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)'s AskCHIS Neighborhood Edition (AskCHIS NE) and the American Community Survey (ACS). The outcome of interest was obesity prevalence at the city level for people aged 18 and older. The estimated effect of the policy was calculated as the difference between the observed outcome in each soda tax city in the post-policy period and the predicted outcome in the synthetic controls in the post-policy period. The causal estimand of interest was the average treatment effect among the treated (ATT). We adjusted for sex, age, employment status, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, poverty, household median income, population size, and percentage of people who took public transportation to work.
resultsRelative to not implementing a soda tax, the mean difference in obesity prevalence three years after the implementation of a soda tax was -5.5 (95%CI -34.9 to 21.1) percentage points (pp) in Berkeley, -1.7 (95%CI, -11.3 to 6.8) pp in Albany, -1.0 (95%CI, -6.5 to 4.3) pp in Oakland, and 2.6 (-11.0 to 16.8) pp in San Francisco. Overall, the mean difference in obesity prevalence was -1.4 (95%CI, -9.2 to 5.7) pp.
conclusionsIn this study, we illustrated the use of the augmented synthetic control methodology within a target trial framework with group-level longitudinal data. Our estimates of the impact of SSB tax policy on the obesity prevalence in California were imprecise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.