These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34797249)

  • 1. "Holding the City's Feet to the Fire": Lessons Learned From Oakland's Implementation of Measure HH Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax.
    Asada Y; Chriqui JF; Pipito AA; Taher S; Powell LM
    J Public Health Manag Pract; 2022 Jan-Feb 01; 28(1):E137-E145. PubMed ID: 34797249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Media Coverage and Framing of Oakland's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, 2016-2019.
    Asada Y; Taher S; Pipito A; Chriqui JF
    Am J Health Promot; 2021 Jun; 35(5):698-702. PubMed ID: 33438434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Oakland's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax: Honoring the "Spirit" of the Ordinance Toward Equitable Implementation.
    Asada Y; Pipito AA; Chriqui JF; Taher S; Powell LM
    Health Equity; 2021; 5(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 33681687
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Examining the Role and Strategies of Advocacy Coalitions in California's Statewide Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Debate (2001-2018).
    Garibay KK; Burke NJ; Ramírez AS; Payán DD
    Am J Health Promot; 2024 Jan; 38(1):101-111. PubMed ID: 37728321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Longer-term impacts of the Oakland, California, sugar-sweetened beverage tax on prices and volume sold at two-years post-tax.
    Leider J; Powell LM
    Soc Sci Med; 2022 Jan; 292():114537. PubMed ID: 34838326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study.
    Silver LD; Ng SW; Ryan-Ibarra S; Taillie LS; Induni M; Miles DR; Poti JM; Popkin BM
    PLoS Med; 2017 Apr; 14(4):e1002283. PubMed ID: 28419108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Implementation of the First US Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax in Berkeley, CA, 2015-2019.
    Falbe J; Grummon AH; Rojas N; Ryan-Ibarra S; Silver LD; Madsen KA
    Am J Public Health; 2020 Sep; 110(9):1429-1437. PubMed ID: 32673112
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Oakland, United States, 2015-2019: A quasi-experimental and cost-effectiveness study.
    White JS; Basu S; Kaplan S; Madsen KA; Villas-Boas SB; Schillinger D
    PLoS Med; 2023 Apr; 20(4):e1004212. PubMed ID: 37071600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. City-Level Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes and Youth Body Mass Index Percentile.
    Young DR; Hedderson MM; Sidell MA; Lee C; Cohen DA; Liu EF; Barton LJ; Falbe J; Inzhakova G; Sridhar S; Voorhees AC; Han B
    JAMA Netw Open; 2024 Jul; 7(7):e2424822. PubMed ID: 39083272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of Changes in Prices and Purchases Following Implementation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes Across the US.
    Kaplan S; White JS; Madsen KA; Basu S; Villas-Boas SB; Schillinger D
    JAMA Health Forum; 2024 Jan; 5(1):e234737. PubMed ID: 38180765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Higher Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Retail Prices After Excise Taxes in Oakland and San Francisco.
    Falbe J; Lee MM; Kaplan S; Rojas NA; Ortega Hinojosa AM; Madsen KA
    Am J Public Health; 2020 Jul; 110(7):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 32437271
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Oakland's sugar-sweetened beverage tax: Impacts on prices, purchases and consumption by adults and children.
    Cawley J; Frisvold D; Hill A; Jones D
    Econ Hum Biol; 2020 May; 37():100865. PubMed ID: 32126505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Politics of Taxes for Health: An Analysis of the Passage of the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax in Mexico.
    James E; Lajous M; Reich MR
    Health Syst Reform; 2020; 6(1):e1669122. PubMed ID: 32043913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effectiveness and Policy Determinants of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes.
    Hagenaars LL; Jeurissen PPT; Klazinga NS; Listl S; Jevdjevic M
    J Dent Res; 2021 Dec; 100(13):1444-1451. PubMed ID: 34034538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Case Study of the Philadelphia Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policymaking Process: Implications for Policy Development and Advocacy.
    Purtle J; Langellier B; Lê-Scherban F
    J Public Health Manag Pract; 2018; 24(1):4-8. PubMed ID: 28257409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Sweetened Beverage Tax in Cook County, Illinois: Lessons From a Failed Effort.
    Chriqui JF; Sansone CN; Powell LM
    Am J Public Health; 2020 Jul; 110(7):1009-1016. PubMed ID: 32437287
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The impact of the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax on price promotions of sugar-sweetened and alternative beverages.
    El-Sayed OM; Powell LM
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(6):e0285956. PubMed ID: 37294798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. No long-term store marketing changes following sugar-sweetened beverage tax implementation: Oakland, California.
    Zenk SN; Li Y; Leider J; Pipito AA; Powell LM
    Health Place; 2021 Mar; 68():102512. PubMed ID: 33517072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pass-through of the Oakland, California, sugar-sweetened beverage tax in food stores two years post-implementation: A difference-in-differences study.
    Leider J; Li Y; Powell LM
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(1):e0244884. PubMed ID: 33395444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Pro- and Anti-Tax Framing in News Articles About California Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Campaigns from 2014-2018.
    Garcia K; Mejia P; Perez-Sanz S; Dorfman L; Madsen K; Schillinger D
    J Health Commun; 2023 Oct; 28(10):658-668. PubMed ID: 37682070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.