Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31907028›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2020

Reducing meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: protocol for a meta-analysis and theoretical review.

Maya B Mathur, Thomas N Robinson, David B Reichling, Christopher D Gardner, Janice Nadler, Paul A Bain, Jacob Peacock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

7 authors.

Maya B MathurQuantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. mmathur@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6698-2607
Thomas N RobinsonStanford Solutions Science Lab, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
David B ReichlingDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Christopher D GardnerStanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
Janice NadlerAmerican Bar Foundation, Chicago, USA.
Paul A BainCountway Library of Medicine, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA.
Jacob PeacockThe Humane League Labs, Rockville, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Animal WelfareConsumer BehaviorMeatPsychological TheoryAnimalsFood SupplyHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicAnimal welfareBehavior changeMeat consumptionMeat paradoxNutrition

Identifiers

PMID31907028
PMCPMC6945605

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.