Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36839195›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2023

Stakeholder Beliefs about Alternative Proteins: A Systematic Review.

Mario Amato, Roberta Riverso, Rossella Palmieri, Fabio Verneau, Francesco La Barbera

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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.

Mario AmatoDepartment of Political Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via Rodinò 22/A, 80138 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7557-5912
Roberta RiversoDepartment of Political Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via Rodinò 22/A, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Rossella PalmieriDepartment of Political Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via Rodinò 22/A, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Fabio VerneauDepartment of Political Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via Rodinò 22/A, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Francesco La BarberaDepartment of Political Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via Rodinò 22/A, 80138 Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, a great deal of research has been conducted on consumers' attitudes and beliefs in favor and against alternative proteins (AP). By contrast, a much more limited research effort has been devoted to understanding stakeholders' point of view. The current work provides a first systematic review of the existing literature on stakeholders' beliefs towards alternative protein sources. Moreover, a secondary content analysis was carried out on the selected studies, providing an overview of the major themes emerging from the existing literature in relation to utilitarian, normative, and control beliefs that stakeholders hold towards AP. Results showed that stakeholders' beliefs are very different from those that emerged from previous research on consumers' views. Overall, stakeholders appear much more aware, compared to consumers, of the implications of using alternative proteins in relation to the main pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, social). Stakeholders' beliefs were grouped into 13 categories, such as "economics", "consumers", and "rules". With respect to future scenarios, they attribute an important role to political institutions, with respect to both economic and communication aspects, which they consider crucial to overcome persistent consumer skepticism.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorDietary ProteinsDietary Proteinscultured meatedible insectplant-basedrational action approachsustainabilitythematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID36839195
PMCPMC9959635

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.