Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35223964›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2022

Evolution of Milk Consumption and Its Psychological Determinants: A Mini-Review.

Greta Castellini, Guendalina Graffigna

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

2 authors.

Greta CastelliniEngageMinds HUB-Consumer, Food & Health Engagement Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Guendalina GraffignaEngageMinds HUB-Consumer, Food & Health Engagement Research Center, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The consumption of lactose-free products and in particular lactose-free milk is increasing worldwide. Although many studies claim that this dietary trend is mainly determined by the number of lactose intolerant people that is growing, others state that most of them self-report an intolerance that has not been diagnosed by medical tests. However, many researchers reported that the consumption of lactose-free milk may put the consumers' health at risk especially when the subjects are not intolerant. Consequently, understanding this new dietary trend considering its main determinants it is necessary to generate educational and intervention campaigns useful to guide people toward healthier and more adequate eating styles. For these reasons we conducted a narrative mini review to summarize the factors contributing to the consumption of lactose-free milk as an alternative to cow's milk, exploring intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics, biological and physiological, as well as psychological, situational and socio-cultural factors. This narrative mini-review shows that there are six categories of factors that affect the consumption of lactose-free milk. In particular, the intrinsic aspects linked to the product and the socio-demographic characteristics of the consumer are the most explored. On the contrary, situational and socio-cultural factors are the least studied. Finally, this study argues that there are too few studies that investigates the emotional, identity and social aspects underlying these food choices, suggesting the development of future research that investigate the implicit consumer subjective levers to decipher lactose-free milk consumptions.

Indexed as

consumer psychologydeterminantfoodlactose-freemilk

Identifiers

PMID35223964
PMCPMC8873381

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.