Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499902›Full record

Trial reportBMC research notes2021

Are meat options preferred to comparable vegetarian options? An experimental study.

Rachel Pechey, Gareth J Hollands, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Rachel PecheyBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Rachel.pechey@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6558-388X
Gareth J HollandsBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Theresa M MarteauBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 106679/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 206853/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveReducing meat consumption would have substantial benefits both in terms of health and environmental impact, but meat options may be more attractive to customers than meat-free options. This study tested this by presenting UK adults (n = 540) with a series of pictures showing two meal options and asking them to select which they would prefer to eat right now. They completed this task for every possible pair from a pool of six comparator meat-based options and six target options (66 pairs). Participants all saw identical comparator options, and were randomised to see the same pictures of target options but with descriptions that suggested they were either meat-based or vegetarian.

resultsSelections were used to rank the options for each individual from 1 (most-selected) to 12 (least-selected). Vegetarian target options were ranked worse [by 1.23 places (95% CI: 1.02, 1.44)] than meat target options. Higher self-reported consumption of meat predicted worse mean rankings of target options when these were vegetarian, but not when target options were meat-based. This suggests meat options are preferred to equivalent vegetarian options and may be more likely to be selected. This has implications for interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption to make diets healthier and more sustainable.

Indexed as

Diet, VegetarianVegetariansAdultDietHumansMealsMeatFoodHealthMeatPreferencesSustainabilityVegetarian

Identifiers

PMID33499902
PMCPMC7836153

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.