The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public views of the benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet
Open accessAbstract
Objective:The aim of this study was to examine consumers' perceived benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet.Design:Mail survey that included questions on perceived benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet.Setting:Victoria, Australia.Subjects:Four hundred and fifteen randomly selected Victorian adults.Results:The main perceived barrier to adoption of a plant-based diet was a lack of information about plant-based diets (42% agreement). Sex, age and education differences were present in over a quarter of the barrier items. For example, non-university-educated respondents and older people were less willing to change their current eating pattern than were university educated and younger respondents. The main benefits associated with plant-based diets were health benefits, particularly decreased saturated fat intake (79% agreement), increased fibre intake (76%), and disease prevention (70%). Age, sex and education differences with regard to benefits were apparent, although sex differences were more important than age or education differences.Conclusions:The majority of respondents perceived there to be health benefits associated with the consumption of a plant-based diet. Compared with the proportion of respondents who agreed that there were particular benefits of eating a plant-based diet, perceived barriers were relatively low. An understanding of the perceived benefits and barriers of consuming a plant-based diet will help formulate strategies that aim to influence beliefs about plant foods, plant food consumption, and, ultimately, public health.Sponsorship:Australian Research Council.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817400200403 · Cited by 6,116
STABLES, G. J., SUBAR, A. F., PATTERSON, B. H., DODD, K., HEIMENDINGER, J., VAN DUYN, M. A. S., & NEBELING, L. (2002) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(02)90181-1 · Cited by 191
Cited by
Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & de Graaf, C. (2011) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001 · Cited by 757
Wright, N., Wilson, L., Smith, M., Duncan, B., & McHugh, P. (2017) · Nutrition & Diabetes · doi:10.1038/nutd.2017.3 · Cited by 340
Cardello, A. V., Llobell, F., Giacalone, D., Roigard, C. M., & Jaeger, S. R. (2022) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104599 · Cited by 191
Barriers and facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet in a sample of Danish consumers
Reipurth, M. F. S., Hørby, L., Gregersen, C. G., Bonke, A., & Perez Cueto, F. J. A. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.012 · Cited by 173
Effects of Plant-Based Diets on Outcomes Related to Glucose Metabolism: A Systematic Review
Johannesen, C. O., Dale, H. F., Jensen, C., & Lied, G. A. (2020) · Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy · doi:10.2147/dmso.s265982 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Lea, E. J., Crawford, D., & Worsley, A.
- Venue
- European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Published
- 2006-02-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 828-837
- ISSN
- 0954-3007 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5640
- OpenAlex
- W2066565254
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.