Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36429235›Full record

ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022

The Motivations for Consumption of Edible Insects: A Systematic Review.

Sofia G Florença, Raquel P F Guiné, Fernando J A Gonçalves, Maria João Barroca, Manuela Ferreira, Cristina A Costa, Paula M R Correia, Ana P Cardoso, Sofia Campos, Ofélia Anjos and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Characteristics of built food environments associated with alternative protein food choices: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Sofia G FlorençaFaculty of Food and Nutrition Sciences, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2541-4448
Raquel P F GuinéCERNAS Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0595-6805
Fernando J A GonçalvesCERNAS Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7770-8056
Maria João BarrocaMolecular Physical-Chemistry R&D Unit, Department of Chemistry, University of Coimbra, 3004-535 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9186-0975
Manuela FerreiraHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.
Cristina A CostaCERNAS Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8625-2206
Paula M R CorreiaCERNAS Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2023-4475
Ana P CardosoCIDEI-IPV Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5062-4098
Sofia CamposCIDEI-IPV Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4696-3537
Ofélia AnjosSchool of Agriculture, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, 6001-909 Castelo Branco, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0267-3252
Luís Miguel CunhaGreenUPorto-Sustainable Agrifood Production Research Centre/INOV4Agro, Departamento de Geociências, Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território (DGAOT), Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, 4485-646 Vila do Conde, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4590-7533

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia UIDB/00239/2020Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia UIDB/00681/2020Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia UIDB/007421/2020Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia UIDB/05507/2020Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia UIDB/05748/2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The consumption of edible insects (EI) is traditional in many parts of the world, but not in others. In fact, despite globalization and the multiple advantages pointed out about the consumption of EI, there are still many countries where entomophagy is seen with disgust and aversion. This systematic review aimed to examine the motivations that influence the consumption of EI in diverse cultures and understand if there are differences between Western countries (WC) and insect-eating countries (IEC). It further evaluated whether the degree of acceptability was influenced by the form of consumption of the insects (eating whole insects or foods containing insects). This literature review was conducted in November 2021 within three databases, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus, according to the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis and using PRISMA directives. From a total of 245 studies, 31 were selected to be included in this review, based on the inclusion criteria defined: only original research articles, from 2010 or beyond, and written in English. The results indicated that the main motivations that determine the consumption of EI are related to gender, age, sustainability, nutritional value, sensory attributes, tradition/culture, food neophobia, disgust and familiarity/past experiences. Moreover, whereas in IEC, there is a greater focus on factors related to sensory attributes, availability, affordability and preferences, in WC, there is a bigger emphasis on determinants such as nutritional value, sustainability, benefits, familiarity/past experience, tradition/culture, food neophobia and disgust. Finally, it was observed that people in WC are more willing to accept food products containing insects rather than the whole insect, which is one of the most promising points to be addressed in the future. Overall, this review highlights that there are numerous factors influencing the consumption of edible insects, and differences between WC and IEC are clear in what concerns the motivations of consumers. Hence, targeting market segments and consumers' characteristics has to be present when designing strategies to incentivize the consumption of EI in WC as a part of a global strategy for sustainability of food systems.

Indexed as

acceptanceconsumerdeterminantsedible insectsinsect-eating countriesperceptionPRISMAWestern countries

Identifiers

PMID36429235
PMCPMC9689975

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.