Skip to main content

Table 2 Study-level characteristics by study design underlying the main comparison reported in this review

From: Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review with qualitative comparative analysis

Reference and country Eligibility criteria Recruitment strategy Attrition and sample size (a, b) Availability EPHPP QATQS score (c)
Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT)
 Arndt, 2016, study 1, USA [43] Exclusion: Individuals who seldom or never ate meat, did not eat meat weekly, consumed no meat containing meal in the past 3 days, ate no serving of meat on an average day, less than 10% of what they ate on an average day is meat, believed that eating meat is bad, disliked eating meat, identified as vegetarians or vegans. Individual recruitment through Amazon Mechanical Turk. T1: 0% (179 to 179) Unpublished, available online Low
 Arndt, 2016, study 2, USA [43] See Arndt 2016, study 1. See Arndt 2016, study 1. T1: 0% (296 to 296) Unpublished, available online Low
 Carfora et al., 2017, Italy [32] Exclusion: Individuals following specific diets (such as vegan, vegetarian, protein, slimming and/or fattening diets). E-mails were sent to a convenience sample of Italian undergraduates. T1: 9.68% (124 to112) Peer reviewed publication Medium
 Carfora et al., 2017, Italy [31] Participants had to have a mobile phone supporting SMS. Exclusion: Individuals following specific diets or who participated to the other study by Carfora. See Carfora et al., 2017 above. T1: 4.2% (238 to 228) Peer reviewed publication Medium
 Emmons et al., 2005, USA [25] Participants had to be between 40 and 75 years, have an adenomatous colon polyp removed within 4 weeks of recruitment, have no personal history of CRC, be competent in English, be capable of informed consent, and be reachable by phone. Eligible individuals were sent a letter describing the study and were later contacted by phone unless they opted out. T1: 12.59% (1247 to 1090) Peer reviewed publication Strong
 Emmons et al., 2005, USA [26] Participants had to be 18 to 75 years old, have a visit scheduled with a participating healthcare provider, be competent in English or Spanish, and come from an eligible working-class neighbourhood. Exclusion: Individuals who had cancer at enrolment, or who were employed by the participating health centres or at a worksite participating in the companion study (Emmons et al., 2005 (a)). See Emmons et al., 2005 above. T1: 12% (2219 to 1954) Peer reviewed publication Medium
 Fehrenbach, 2013, USA [33] Exclusion: Individuals who were vegan, vegetarian, or pescetarian, self-reported insufficient attention to the message, previously completed part or all of the survey, had incomplete data, received the wrong intervention, and international or non-undergraduate students. Individuals were sampled from communication classes at a large university in Arizona in exchange for extra credits. T1: 10.1% (208 to 187) Unpublished, not available online Low
 Fehrenbach, 2015, USA [37] Participants had to be U.S. resident, 25–44 years of age and consume meat 7+ times/week. Exclusion: Individuals who took the survey on mobile devices, failed an attention filter, or completed the survey too quickly or without viewing the video. Individual recruitment from a national panel using Qualtrics. T1: 1.61% (373 to 367) Unpublished, available online Low
T2: 58.98% (373 to 153)
 Graham et al., 2017, New Zealand [39] Participants had to reside in New Zealand and pass an attention filter. Individual recruitment through convenience and snowball techniques on a university campus, and advertisement outside the university campus. T1: 0% Peer reviewed publication Medium
 Klöckner et al., 2017, study 1, Netherlands [44] Participants had to be adult Norwegians. Individuals were randomly selected from the population registry and sent an invitation letter. T1: 17.1% (1047 to 868) Peer reviewed publication Low
 Klöckner et al., 2017, study 2, Netherlands [44] Participants had to be adults. Individuals were recruited from the professional online panel TNS Gallup. T1: 8.63% (3895 to 3559) Peer reviewed publication Medium
 Tian et al., 2016, study 1, France and China [49] Exclusion: Individuals who identified as vegetarians. Individuals were recruited using social media and internal university advertisement. T1: 41.47% (885 to 518) Peer reviewed publication Low
 Tian et al., 2016, study 2, France and China [49] See Tian et al., 2016, study 1. See Tian et al., 2016, study 1. T1: 14.52% (606 to 518) Peer reviewed publication Low
 Vibhuti, 2016, USA [40] Participants had to be adults and reside in the US. Individual recruitment through Amazon Mechanical Turk. T1: 0,97% (412 to 408) Unpublished, available online Low
Non-randomised Controlled Trials (CT)
 Allen et al., 2012, Australia [42] N/A The survey was sent to a random sample of individuals drawn from the telephone directory. T1: 1.82% (220 to 216) Peer reviewed publication Low
T2: 55.91% (220 to 97)
 Berndsen et al., 2005, study 1, Netherlands [34] Participants had to be meat eaters. Individual recruitment through internal university advertisement T1: 0% (141 to 141) Peer reviewed publication Low
T2: 0% (141 to 141)
 Berndsen et al., 2005, study 2, Netherlands [34] See Berndsen et al., 2005, study 1. See Berndsen et al., 2005, study 1. T1: 0% (92 to 92) Peer reviewed publication Low
T2: 0% (92 to 92)
 Bertolotti et al., 2016, Italy [38] Participants had to be over 60 years old, had to volunteer to participate, and complete sufficient sections of the questionnaire. Active recruitment of individuals from socio-recreational centres for the elderly in Milan, Italy. T1: 19.17% (120 to 97) Peer reviewed publication Strong
 Schiavon et al., 2015, Brazil [27] All patients admitted for surgical treatment of suspected malignant breast tumors in the Maternidade Carmela Dutra Hospital. Exclusion: Individuals who had a history of cancer or a surgical procedure in the previous year; were pregnant or breastfeeding at the time of diagnosis; had positive results for HIV; had neoadjuvant cancer treatment, or a neurological disease. Active recruitment of all aforementioned patients. T1: 9.71% (103 to 93) Peer reviewed publication Strong
Crossover design (CO)
 Scrimgeour, 2012, New Zealand [35] N/A Individuals were recruited using the University Psychology and Geography mailing lists and snowballing techniques T1: 18.66% (434 to 353) Unpublished, available online Medium
Single group pre-post design
 Cordts et al., 2014, Germany [36] Participants had to be meat eaters. Individual recruitment through a professional panel provider with the aim of obtaining a representative sample of the German population. T1: 5.76% (590 to 556) Peer reviewed publication Strong
 Godfrey, 2014, Canada [41] N/A Food stations were recruited from the University Dining Centre at the University of Calgary. T1: N/A (16,786 meal purchases) Unpublished, available online Medium
 Grimmet et al., 2016, UK [30] Participants had to be over 18 years, have completed treatment for non-metastatic CRC within the last 6 months, be competent in English, have adequate mobility and no contraindications for unsupervised physical activity. Consultants in 3 London hospitals referred patients to the researchers and research-nurses recruited participants from 5 London hospitals. T1: 20.69% (29 to 23) Peer reviewed publication Medium
 Hawkes et al., 2009, Australia [28] Participants had to be 20–80 years old, approximately 6 months post-CRC diagnosis; competent in English; and have no hearing, speech, or cognitive disabilities preventing them from completing telephone interviews. Invitation and consent packages were sent to individuals who had undergone treatment in 3 the practices of three practitioners in Brisbane. T1: 0% (20 to 20) Peer reviewed publication Strong
 Hawkes et al., 2012, Australia [29] Participants had to be able to understand and give informed consent in English; have no current or previous diagnosis of CRC or medical conditions limiting adherence to an unsupervised lifestyle program; own a phone; and have one or more poor health behaviour(s) among: not achieving ≥150 min of physical activity/week; eating > 4 servings of red meat/week or < 2 serves of fruit/day, or < 5 servings of vegetables/day; consuming > 2 drinks/day; or if they had a BMI ≥25. Participants had to have a first degree relative with CRC. Social media, printed material, radio and online advertisement. T1: 0% (22 to 22) Peer reviewed publication Medium
 Loy et al., 2016, Germany [45] Participants had to be non-vegetarians and proficient in German. Individuals were recruited through internal university advertisement. T1: 3,33% (60 to 58) Peer reviewed publication Medium
T2: 8.33% (60 to 55)
 Marette et al., 2016, France [46] Participants had to eat ground beef, at least occasionally. Individuals were recruited via phone to randomly select a sample representative of the age groups and socio-economic status of the population in Dijon, France. T1: 3,23% (124 to 120) Report, available online Strong
Retrospective intervention evaluation
 Leidig, 2012, study 1, USA [47] All healthcare accounts of Sodexo’s food service in the USA were eligible. The survey was distributed to the managers of all USA healthcare accounts. T1: N/A (119 account managers) Report, available online Low
 Leidig, 2012, study 2, USA [47] All corporate and governmental accounts of Sodexo’s food service in the USA were eligible. The survey was distributed to the managers of all USA corporate and government accounts. T1: N/A (126 account managers) Report, available online Low
  1. Legend: (a) T1 and T2 respectively refer to the follow up closest to the intervention completion and to the longest available follow-up. (b) Studies reporting no attrition may have reported data of completers only throughout the paper. (c) The EPHPP QATQS (Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool For Quantitative Studies) score indicates the study’s methodological quality and is based on: (1) study design, (2) selection bias, (3) confounders, (4) blinding, (5) data collection method, (6) withdrawal and dropouts. Studies with ≥2 weak ratings in the aforementioned dimensions are assigned a ‘low’ score, studies with 1 weak rating are assigned a ‘medium’ score, and studies with no weak rating are assigned a ‘strong’ score