Trial reportPloS one2022
Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining the Longitudinal Relationship Between Perceived and Actual Message Effectiveness: A Randomized Trial.Health communication · 2024Trial
- Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Trial
- Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2023Trial
- Designing Effective Alcohol Warnings: Consumer Reactions to Icons and Health Topics.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Trial
- Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021Trial
- Sustainability Views and Intentions to Reduce Beef Consumption: An International Web-Based Survey.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Environmental-, Climate-, and Health-Related Dietary Motivations Are Associated With Higher Diet Quality in a National Sample of US Adults With Lower Incomes.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2024Article
- Developing messages to encourage healthy, sustainable dietary substitutions: A qualitative study with US emerging adults.Appetite · 2024Article
- Consumer Interaction with Sustainability Labelling on Food Products: A Narrative Literature Review.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe United States has among the highest per capita red meat consumption in the world. Reducing red meat consumption is crucial for minimizing the environmental impact of diets and improving health outcomes. Warning messages are effective for reducing purchases of products like sugary beverages but have not been developed for red meat. This study developed health and environmental warning messages about red meat and explored participants' reactions to these messages.
methodsA national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,199; mean age 45 years) completed an online survey in 2020 for this exploratory study. Participants were randomized to view a series of either health or environmental warning messages (between-subjects factor) about the risks associated with eating red meat. Messages were presented in random order (within-subjects factor; 8 health messages or 10 environmental messages). Participants rated each warning message on a validated 3-item scale measuring perceived message effectiveness (PME), ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Participants then rated their intentions to reduce their red meat consumption in the next 7 days.
resultsHealth warning messages elicited higher PME ratings than environmental messages (mean 2.66 vs. 2.26, p<0.001). Health warning messages also led to stronger intentions to reduce red meat consumption compared to environmental messages (mean 2.45 vs. 2.19, p<0.001). Within category (health and environmental), most pairwise comparisons of harms were not statistically significant.
conclusionsHealth warning messages were perceived to be more effective than environmental warning messages. Future studies should measure the impact of these messages on behavioral outcomes.
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.