Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33984401›Full record

SynthesisAppetite2021

Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.

Maya B Mathur, Jacob Peacock, David B Reichling, Janice Nadler, Paul A Bain, Christopher D Gardner, Thomas N Robinson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Appetite, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors.

Maya B MathurQuantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, USA. Electronic address: mmathur@stanford.edu.
Jacob PeacockThe Humane League Labs, USA. Electronic address: jpeacock@thehumaneleague.org.
David B ReichlingDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of California at San Francisco (ret.), USA. Electronic address: nervefiber@gmail.com.
Janice NadlerAmerican Bar Foundation, USA; Pritzker School of Law, Northwestern University, USA. Electronic address: jnadler@law.northwestern.edu.
Paul A BainCountway Library of Medicine, Harvard University, USA. Electronic address: paul_bain@hms.harvard.edu.
Christopher D GardnerStanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, USA. Electronic address: cgardner@stanford.edu.
Thomas N RobinsonStanford Solutions Science Lab, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, USA. Electronic address: tom.robinson@stanford.edu.

Funding

Stanford Islet Research CoreP30DK116074 · NIDDK · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Seung K Kim · 2017 to 2026
$19.5M
Statistical Methods for Modern Evidence Syntheses with Multiple BiasesR01LM013866 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MATHUR, MAYA · 2021 to 2024
$1.3M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK116074NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013866
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorMeatAnimalsAnimal WelfareHumansPsychological TheoryBehavior interventionsMeat consumptionMeta-analysisNutritionPlanetary health

Identifiers

PMID33984401
PMCPMC9205607

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.