ArticleSystematic reviews2020
Reducing meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: protocol for a meta-analysis and theoretical review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.Appetite · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of the relationship between sustainable and healthy eating behaviours, phytochemical index, anthropometric measurements, and depression in young adults.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- How the sausage is made: Testing the effectiveness of an informative video in promoting sustainable food consumption.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Review on Innovative Food Gelling Strategies for Sustainable Production of Meat Analogs and Restructured Meat.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Explanatory AI Predicts the Diet Adopted Based on Nutritional and Lifestyle Habits in the Spanish Population.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Article
- Socio-demographic determinants of dietary choices and their impact on health in Spanish adults.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Willingness to Pay a Higher Price for Pork Obtained Using Animal-Friendly Raising Techniques: A Consumers' Opinion Survey.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A South African Perspective on the Microbiological and Chemical Quality of Meat: Plausible Public Health Implications.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Exploring Consumer Behavior and Preferences in Welfare-Friendly Pork Breeding: A Multivariate Analysis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Australian Generation Z and the Nexus between Climate Change and Alternative Proteins.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Framing and Tailoring Prefactual Messages to Reduce Red Meat Consumption: Predicting Effects Through a Psychology-Based Graphical Causal Model.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Meta-regression methods to characterize evidence strength using meaningful-effect percentages conditional on study characteristics.Research synthesis methods · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage and greenhouse gas emissions, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Previous work has begun to develop interventions to reduce individual meat consumption, often by appealing directly to individual health motivations. However, research on nutritional behavior change suggests that interventions additionally linking behavior to ethical values, identity formation, and existing social movements may be particularly effective and longer-lasting. Regarding meat consumption, preliminary evidence and psychological theory suggest that appeals related to animal welfare may have considerable potential to effectively leverage these elements of human psychology. We aim to conduct a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of animal welfare-related appeals on actual or intended meat consumption or purchasing. Our investigation will critically synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding psychological mechanisms of intervening on individual meat consumption and empirically identify the psychological characteristics underlying the most effective animal welfare-based interventions.
methodsWe will systematically search eight academic databases and extensively search unpublished grey literature. We will include studies that assess interventions intended to reduce meat consumption or purchase through the mention or portrayal of animal welfare, that measure outcomes related to meat consumption or purchase, and that have a control condition. Eligible studies may recruit from any human population, be written in any language, and be published or released any time. We will meta-analyze the studies, reporting the pooled point estimate and additional metrics that describe the distribution of potentially heterogeneous effects. We will assess studies' risk of bias and conduct sensitivity analyses for publication bias. We describe possible follow-up analyses to investigate hypothesized moderators of intervention effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The findings of the proposed systematic review and meta-analysis, including any identified methodological limitations of the existing literature, could inform the design of successful evidence-based interventions with broad potential to improve human, animal, and environmental well-being. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol was preregistered via the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/d3y56/registrations).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.