Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29576031›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2018

Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours.

Roni A Neff, Danielle Edwards, Anne Palmer, Rebecca Ramsing, Allison Righter, Julia Wolfson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021
    Trial
  6. BiofortifiedMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Predictors of Meat Reduction: The Case of Slovenia.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Roni A Neff1Department of Environmental Health & Engineering,Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,615 N. Wolfe Street,Baltimore,MD 21205,USA.
Danielle Edwards2Department of Health Policy & Management,Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,Baltimore,MD,USA.
Anne Palmer3Center for a Livable Future,Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,Baltimore,MD,USA.
Rebecca Ramsing3Center for a Livable Future,Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,Baltimore,MD,USA.
Allison Righter5School of Culinary Science & Nutrition,The Culinary Institute of America,Hyde Park,NY,USA.
Julia Wolfson6Department of Health Management and Policy,University of Michigan School of Public Health,Ann Arbor,MI,USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveExcess meat consumption, particularly of red and processed meats, is associated with nutritional and environmental health harms. While only a small portion of the population is vegetarian, surveys suggest many Americans may be reducing their meat consumption. To inform education campaigns, more information is needed about attitudes, perceptions, behaviours and foods eaten in meatless meals.

designA web-based survey administered in April 2015 assessed meat reduction behaviours, attitudes, what respondents ate in meatless meals and sociodemographic characteristics.

settingNationally representative, web-based survey in the USA. SUBJECTS: US adults (n 1112) selected from GfK Knowledgeworks' 50 000-member online panel. Survey weights were used to assure representativeness.

resultsTwo-thirds reported reducing meat consumption in at least one category over three years, with reductions of red and processed meat most frequent. The most common reasons for reduction were cost and health; environment and animal welfare lagged. Non-meat reducers commonly agreed with statements suggesting that meat was healthy and 'belonged' in the diet. Vegetables were most often consumed 'always' in meatless meals, but cheese/dairy was also common. Reported meat reduction was most common among those aged 45-59 years and among those with lower incomes.

conclusionsThe public and environmental health benefits of reducing meat consumption create a need for campaigns to raise awareness and contribute to motivation for change. These findings provide rich information to guide intervention development, both for the USA and other high-income countries that consume meat in high quantities.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDietDiet, VegetarianEatingFemaleHumansInternetMaleMeatMiddle AgedUnited StatesDietary attitudesDietary behavioursMeat consumptionMeat reduction

Identifiers

PMID29576031
PMCPMC6088533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.