lunes, 12 de mayo de 2014

Preventing Chronic Disease | Student-Reported School Drinking Fountain Availability by Youth Characteristics and State Plumbing Codes - CDC

full-text ►

Preventing Chronic Disease | Student-Reported School Drinking Fountain Availability by Youth Characteristics and State Plumbing Codes - CDC

PCD Logo

Student-Reported School Drinking Fountain Availability by Youth Characteristics and State Plumbing Codes

Stephen J. Onufrak, PhD; Sohyun Park, PhD; Cara Wilking, JD

Suggested citation for this article: Onufrak SJ, Park S, Wilking C. Student-Reported School Drinking Fountain Availability by Youth Characteristics and State Plumbing Codes. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:130314. DOI: Web Site Icon.


Caloric intake among children could be reduced if sugar-sweetened beverages were replaced by plain water. School drinking water infrastructure is dictated in part by state plumbing codes, which generally require a minimum ratio of drinking fountains to students. Actual availability of drinking fountains in schools and how availability differs according to plumbing codes is unknown.
We abstracted state plumbing code data and used the 2010 YouthStyles survey data from 1,196 youth aged 9 through 18 years from 47 states. We assessed youth-reported school drinking fountain or dispenser availability and differences in availability according to state plumbing codes, sociodemographic characteristics, and area-level characteristics.
Overall, 57.3% of youth reported that drinking fountains or dispensers in their schools were widely available, 40.1% reported there were only a few, and 2.6% reported that there were no working fountains. Reported fountain availability differed significantly (P < .01) by race/ethnicity, census region, the fountain to student ratio specified in plumbing codes, and whether plumbing codes allowed substitution of nonplumbed water sources for plumbed fountains. “Widely available” fountain access ranged from 45.7% in the West to 65.4% in the Midwest and was less common where state plumbing codes required 1 fountain per more than 100 students (45.4%) compared with 1 fountain per 100 students (60.1%) or 1 fountain per fewer than 100 students (57.6%).
Interventions designed to increase consumption of water may want to consider the role of plumbing codes in availability of school drinking fountains.

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Stephen J. Onufrak, PhD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, Obesity Prevention and Control Branch, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE, MS K-77, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone: 770-488-5551. E-mail:
Author Affiliations: Sohyun Park, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Cara Wilking, Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.


  1. US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th edition. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office; 2010. Accessed February 3, 2011.
  2. Wang YC, Ludwig DS, Sonneville K, Gortmaker SL. Impact of change in sweetened caloric beverage consumption on energy intake among children and adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009;163(4):336–43. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  3. Park S, Blanck HM, Sherry B, Brener N, O’Toole T. Factors associated with low water intake among US high school students — National Youth Physical Activity and Nutrition Study, 2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2012;112(9):1421–7. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Accessed May 16, 2012.
  5. D’Anci KE, Constant F, Rosenberg IH. Hydration and cognitive function in children. Nutr Rev 2006;64(10 Pt 1):457–64. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  6. Muckelbauer R, Libuda L, Clausen K, Toschke AM, Reinehr T, Kersting M. Promotion and provision of drinking water in schools for overweight prevention: randomized, controlled cluster trial. Pediatrics 2009;123(4):e661–7. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  7. Patel AI, Bogart LM, Elliott MN, Lamb S, Uyeda KE, Hawes-Dawson J, et al. Increasing the availability and consumption of drinking water in middle schools: a pilot study. Prev Chronic Dis 2011;8(3):A60. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  8. Institute of Medicine. Nutrition standards for foods in schools: leading the way toward healthier youth. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2007.
  9. US Department of Agriculture. Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Accessed August 30, 2013.
  10. Condition of America’s public school facilities: 1999. Washington (DC): US Department of Education; 2000. Accessed August 30, 2013.
  11. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Percentage of public schools with permanent and portable (temporary) buildings and with environmental factors that interfere with instruction in classrooms, by selected school characteristics, type of factor, and extent of interference: 2005. Digest of Education Statistics; 2008. Accessed August 30, 2013.
  12. US Census Bureau. Current Population Survey (CPS). 2012. Accessed June 27, 2012.
  13. US Census Bureau. Census regions and divisions of the United States. 2013. . Accessed March 18, 2014.
  14. California Department of Education. Drinking water for students in schools. 2012. Accessed August 30, 2013.
  15. Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Terry-McElrath YM, Colabianchi N. School policies and practices to improve health and prevent obesity: National Secondary School Survey results, school years 2006–2007 through 2010–2011. Ann Arbor (MI): Bridging the Gap Program, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research; 2013. Accessed August 30, 2013.
  16. Patel AI, Chandran K, Hampton KE, Hecht K, Grumbach JM, Kimura AT, et al. Observations of drinking water access in school food service areas before implementation of federal and state school water policy, California, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:E121. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  17. Cradock AL, Wilking CL, Olliges SA, Gortmaker SL. Getting back on tap: the policy context and cost of ensuring access to low-cost drinking water in Massachusetts schools. Am J Prev Med 2012;43(3, Suppl 2):S95–101. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  18. Chriqui JF, Resnick EA, Schneider LM, Schermbeck R, Adcock T, Carrion V, et al. School district wellness policies: evaluating progress and potential for improving children’s health five years after the federal mandate, school years 2006–2007 through 2010–2011. Chicago (IL): Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago; 2013. Accessed August 30, 2013.
  19. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-IV, Volume I: School Foodservice Operations, School Environments, and Meals Offered and Served. Alexandria (VA); 2012 November. Accessed March 18, 2014.
  20. Anderson MT, Woosley LH Jr. Water availability for the western United States — key scientific challenges. Reston (VA): US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, circular 1261; 2005.
  21. Onufrak SJ, Park S, Sharkey JR, Sherry B. The relationship of perceptions of tap water safety with intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and plain water among US adults. Public Health Nutr 2012;1–7. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  22. Harter T, Lund JR, Darby J, Fogg GE, Howitt R, Jessoe KK, et al. Addressing nitrate in California’s drinking water with a focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley groundwater. Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis 2012. Accessed August 30, 2013.
  23. Bryant SD. Lead-contaminated drinking waters in the public schools of Philadelphia. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2004;42(3):287–94. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  24. Pollard WE. Use of a consumer panel survey for public health communication planning: an evaluation of survey results. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Health Policy Statistics. Alexandria (VA): American Statistical Association; 2007. p. 1528–33.

No hay comentarios: