Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35244757›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nutrition2022

Effectiveness of an Online Programme to Tackle Individual's Meat Intake through SElf-regulation (OPTIMISE): A randomised controlled trial.

Kerstin Frie, Cristina Stewart, Carmen Piernas, Brian Cook, Susan A Jebb

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04961216 (Effectiveness of an Online Programme to Tackle Individual's Meat Intake Through SElf-regulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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.

NCT04961216 nacompletednot on this map

Effectiveness of an Online Programme to Tackle Individual's Meat Intake Through SElf-regulation (OPTIMISE): A Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2021 to 2021Enrolled151ConditionsDiet HabitArmsOPTIMISE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Universal Truths about Reducing Meat Consumption?Current environmental health reports · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kerstin Frie *Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4717-5874
Cristina Stewart *Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. Cristina.stewart@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3060-5874
Carmen PiernasNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7536-922X
Brian CookNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3902-7449
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-2920
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205212/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA reduction in meat intake is recommended to meet health and environmental sustainability goals. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an online self-regulation intervention to reduce meat consumption.

methodsOne hundred and fifty one adult meat eaters were randomised 1:1 to a multi-component self-regulation intervention or an information-only control. The study lasted 9 weeks (1-week self-monitoring; 4-week active intervention; and 4-week maintenance phase). The intervention included goal-setting, self-monitoring, action-planning, and health and environmental feedback. Meat intake was estimated through daily questionnaires in weeks 1, 5 and 9. The primary outcome was change in meat consumption from baseline to five weeks. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline to nine weeks and change in red and processed meat intake. We used linear regression models to assess the effectiveness of all the above outcomes.

resultsAcross the whole sample, meat intake was 226 g/day at baseline, 118 g/day at five weeks, and 114 g/day at nine weeks. At five weeks, the intervention led to a 40 g/day (95%CI - 11.6,- 67.5, P = 0.006) reduction in meat intake, including a 35 g/day (95%CI - 7.7, - 61.7, P = 0.012) reduction in red and processed meat, relative to control. There were no significant differences in meat reduction after the four-week maintenance phase (- 12 g/day intervention vs control, 95% CI 19.1, - 43.4, P = 0.443). Participants said the intervention was informative and eye-opening.

conclusionThe intervention was popular among participants and helped achieve initial reductions in meat intake, but the longer-term reductions did not exceed control.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04961216, 14th July 2021, retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

MeatSelf-ControlAdultHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesGoal-settingMeat intakeMeat reductionMulti-component interventionSelf-monitoringSelf-regulation

Identifiers

PMID35244757
PMCPMC9279210
OpenAlexW4214867034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.