Objective

To examine students' experiences of water security at school and how experiences relate to intake of water from different sources of water at school.

Design/methods

In this cross-sectional study, 651 students in grades 3 to 5 in 12 low-income public elementary schools in the San Francisco area completed surveys about their daily intake of water from different sources of water at school, experiences of water security including safety, cleanliness, and taste of water at school, and their demographics. Multivariable linear regressions examined associations between students' water security experiences at school and reported intake from different sources of water at school.

Results

Approximately half of students were Latino (56.1%) and had overweight/obesity (50.4%). Most (74.5%) had some negative water security experience at school. Students drank from the school fountain or water bottle filling station a mean of 1.2 times/day (standard deviation [SD] = 1.4), sinks 0.2 times/day (SD = 0.7), tap water dispensers 0.2 times/day (SD = 0.6), and bottled water 0.5 times/day (SD = 1.0). In multivariable linear regression, students with more negative experiences of school water security drank less frequently from fountains (-0.5 times/day, P value < .001), but more frequently from tap water dispensers (0.1 times/day, P value = .040) and sinks (0.1 times/day, P value = .043), compared to students with no negative perceptions.

Conclusions

On average, students had negative school water security experiences, which decreased their consumption of water from tap water sources. However, relationships between negative water security experiences and reported water intake appeared to be mitigated by water source. Schools should consider installing more appealing water sources to promote water intake.

Over half of U.S. adults visit parks regularly. Thus, it is important to understand how park drinking water sources affect visitors’ water consumption. In this cross-sectional study of 30 San Francisco Bay Area parks, 4 day-long direct observations of visitors’ drinking water and other beverages were conducted, along with audits of sugar-sweetened beverage access and drinking water source conditions, including flow, appeal, and obstructions. Outcomes were log-transformed to account for skewness, and results were analyzed using mixed-effects regression models to account for matching and clustering by park and observation day. A greater proportion of water sources in low-income parks were unappealing (57.14 vs. 25.00%, P ¼ 0.01) or in a poor condition (69.70 vs. 43.24%, P ¼ 0.03). A lower proportion of visitors drank water from park fountains that were unappealing (-31%), had poor flow (-22%), or had obstructions (-58%) than those without these conditions. Although only obstructions to the source and water intake were significantly related after adjustment, we observed important effects on water intake by water source appeal and flow. As park water source conditions contribute to water intake, cities should consider installing appealing, functional, and easy to access water sources in parks, particularly those in lower-income neighborhoods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drinking water promotion and access shows promise for preventing weight gain. This study evaluated the impact of Water First, a school-based water promotion and access intervention on changes in overweight. METHODS: Low-income, ethnically diverse elementary schools in Californias Bay Area were cluster-randomized to intervention and control groups. Water First includes classroom lessons, water stations, and schoolwide water promotion over 1 school year. The primary outcome was overweight prevalence (BMI-for-age-and-sex ≥85th percentile). Students (n = 1249) in 56 fourth-grade classes in 18 schools (9 intervention, 9 control) from 2016 to 2019 participated in evaluation at baseline, 7, and 15 months. Data collection was interrupted in 8 additional recruited schools because of coronavirus disease 2019. RESULTS: Of 1262 students from 18 schools, 1249 (47.4% girls; mean [SD] age, 9.6 [0.4] years; 63.4% Hispanic) were recruited. From baseline to 7 months, there was no significant difference in changes in overweight prevalence in intervention schools (-0.2%) compared to control schools (-0.4%) (adjusted ratio of odds ratios [ORs]: 0.7 [confidence interval (CI): 0.2-2.9] P = 0.68). From baseline to 15-months, increases in overweight prevalence were significantly greater in control schools (3.7%) compared to intervention schools (0.5%). At 15 months, intervention students had a significantly lower change in overweight prevalence (adjusted ratio of ORs: 0.1 [CI: 0.03-0.7] P = .017) compared to control students. There were no intervention effects for obesity prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Water First prevented increases in the prevalence of overweight, but not obesity, in elementary school students.

Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), or drinks with added sugars, show promise in decreasing purchases and consumption of SSBs. Some have called for coupling such taxes with improvements in access to safe drinking water as a strategy for reducing inequities in SSB intake, yet no studies have examined such an approach. Drink Tap is a San Francisco-based program in which public tap water stations were installed in parks and public spaces (winter 2017) and promotional efforts (fall and winter 2018) encouraged water intake. At the same time, San Francisco and surrounding communities were also implementing SSB taxes. We conducted a quasi-experimental study to examine whether water access and promotion combined with SSB taxes affected beverage intake habits more than SSB taxes alone. We conducted 1-hour observations (N = 960) at 10 intervention parks (Drink Tap plus SSB taxes) and 20 comparison parks (SSB taxes only) in San Francisco Bay Area cities before (July-September 2016) and after (June-August 2019) implementation of Drink Tap. We found significant adjusted percentage increases in drinking water among visitors to intervention parks, compared with comparison parks: water from park water sources (+80%, P < .001) and water from reusable bottles (+40%, P = .02). We found no significant reductions in visitors observed drinking bottled water, juices, or SSBs. The Drink Tap intervention led to increases in water intake from park sources and reusable bottles across parks that surpassed increases achieved through SSB taxes alone. Jurisdictions should consider coupling tap water access and promotion with policies for reducing intake of SSBs.