Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36832961›Full record

ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Insects as Food: Consumers' Acceptance and Marketing.

Asmaa Alhujaili, Giuseppe Nocella, Anna Macready

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
30.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Consumer Awareness and Acceptance of Palm Weevil Larvae (International journal of food science · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Methods of Protein Extraction from House Crickets (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Asmaa AlhujailiDepartment of Applied Economics and Marketing, School of Agriculture Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6419-6415
Giuseppe NocellaDepartment of Applied Economics and Marketing, School of Agriculture Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9625-6315
Anna MacreadyDepartment of Applied Economics and Marketing, School of Agriculture Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0368-9336
University of Reading · GBKing Faisal University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing demand for livestock products is associated with an increase in environmental, economic, and ethical issues. New alternative sources of protein such as edible insects have recently been developed to tackle these issues with fewer drawbacks. However, several challenges are associated with insect-based food, mainly regarding consumer acceptance and commercialization. In this systematic review, we explored these challenges by reviewing 85 papers from 2010 to 2020, which were selected following the PRISMA methodology. Additionally, we applied the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type) tool for developing the inclusion criteria. Our analysis adds new knowledge to previous systematic reviews on this topic. It reveals both a comprehensive framework of factors influencing consumers' acceptance of insects as food and aspects of the marketing mix of these products. Disgust, food neophobia, familiarity, visibility of insects, and taste appear to be the most significant factors that can prevent consumers from consuming insects as food. The motivations for acceptance are found to be familiarity and exposure. The results of this review provide insights for policymakers and stakeholders who wish to develop marketing strategies that can increase consumer acceptance of insects as food.

Indexed as

alternative proteinentomophagymarketing mixpsychological factorssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36832961
PMCPMC9956212
OpenAlexW4321371767

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.