The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interventions that Influence Animal-Product Consumption: A Meta-Review
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100111
Abstract
Transitioning toward plant-based diets can alleviate health and sustainability challenges. However, research on interventions that influence animal-product consumption remains fragmented and inaccessible to researchers and practitioners. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews, also known as a meta-review. We searched five databases for reviews that examined interventions that influence (increase or decrease) the consumption of animal products. We quantitatively summarised results using individual studies’ directions of effect because reviews rarely reported effect sizes of primary studies. Eighteen reviews met inclusion criteria, 12 of which examined interventions intended to decrease animal-product consumption and 6 of which examined interventions intended to increase animal-product consumption. In total, only two reviews conducted quantitative meta-analyses. Across all reviews, vote counting indicated that providing information on the environmental impact of meat consumption may reduce consumption, with 10 of 11 estimates suggesting reduced consumption (91%, 95% CI [62.3%, 98.4%]; p = .012). Providing information on the health consequences, emphasising social norms, and reducing meat portion sizes also appeared promising, albeit with more limited evidence. Reviews examining interventions that decreased consumption predominately focused on meat (10/12 reviews). Future reviews should conduct quantitative syntheses where appropriate and examine interventions that influence the consumption of animal products other than meat.
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
Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., & Bangpan, M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9 · Cited by 122
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Grundy, E. A. C., Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Watkins, K., Houlden, T., Farr, N., Askin, H., Lee, J., Mintoft-Jones, A., Cyna, S., Dziegielewski, A., Gelber, R., Rowe, A., Mathur, M. B., Timmons, S., Zhao, K., Wilks, M., Peacock, J. R., Harris, J., Rosenfeld, D. L., Bryant, C. J., Moss, D., & Noetel, M.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Macquarie University (AU)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Stanford University (US)
- Economic and Social Research Institute (IE)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Canterbury Christ Church University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Grundy, Emily A C
- ORCID
- Venue
- Future Foods
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2021-07-22
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 100111-100111
- ISSN
- 2666-8335 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4225693670
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 5.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Future Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Keywords
- animal product consumption, meat consumption, dietary intervention, plant-based diet, environmental impact information, social norms, portion size reduction, food choice behavior
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