Skip to main content

Table 5 Configurations of intervention components not found to be associated with reductions in meat consumption, purchase, or selection in QCA

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

Tailored information provision
Raw coverage: 26%, Internal consistency: 100%
 Outcome: (1) Reduction in intended consumption or purchase/selection of meat in virtual environments
 In the presence of: (2) Tailored information about (3) one or more of (4) environmental, (5) health, (6) animal welfare, or (7) socio-economic issues, (8) targeting healthy individuals
 In the absence of: (9) Implicitly highlighting animal suffering, (10) self-monitoring, (11) goal-setting, (12) practical strategies to eat less meat, and (13) lifestyle counselling
Information about multiple issues
Raw coverage: 19%, Internal consistency: 100%
 Outcome: (1) Reduction in intended consumption or purchase/selection of meat in virtual environments
 In the presence of: Information about (2) two or more of (3) health, (4) environmental, (5) animal welfare, and (6) socio-economic issues (7) targeting healthy individuals
 In the absence of: (8) Practical strategies to eat less meat, (9) implicitly highlighting animal suffering, (10) self-monitoring, (11) goal-setting, and (12) lifestyle counselling
 Regardless of: (13) Tailoring
Information about multiple issues and practical strategies
Raw coverage: 19%, Internal consistency: 100%
 Outcome: (1) Reduction in actual meat consumption, purchase, or selection
 In the presence of: Information about (2) two or more of (3) health, (4) environmental, and (5) socio-economic issues (6) targeting healthy individuals, and (7) practical strategies to eat less meat
 In the absence of: Information about (8) animal welfare, (9) implicitly highlighting animal suffering, (10) self-monitoring, (11) goal-setting, and (12) lifestyle counselling
 Regardless of: (13) Tailoring
Interventions implicitly highlighting animal suffering
Raw coverage: 13%, Internal consistency: 100%
 Outcome: (1) Reduction in intended consumption or purchase/selection of meat in virtual environments
 In the presence of: (2) Non-tailored interventions (3) implicitly highlighting animal suffering, (4) among healthy individuals
 In the absence of: Information about (5) environmental, (6) health, (7) socio-economic, (8) animal welfare issues, (9) multiple consequences of eating meat, as well as (10) self-monitoring, (11) goal-setting, (12) practical strategies to eat less meat, and (13) lifestyle counselling.
Non-tailored education on the environment, when actual behaviour is the outcome
Raw coverage: 6%, Internal consistency: 100%
 Outcome: (1) Reduction in actual consumption, purchase, or selection of meat
 In the presence of: (2) Non-tailored (3) information about environmental issues (4) targeting healthy individuals
 In the absence of: Information about (5) health, (6) socio-economic, (7) animal welfare, (8) or multiple issues, as well as (9) implicitly highlighting animal suffering, (10) self-monitoring, (11) goal-setting, (12) practical strategies to eat less meat, and (13) lifestyle counselling.
Non-tailored education on health, when actual behaviour is the outcome
Raw coverage: 6%, Internal consistency: 100%
 Outcome: (1) Reduction in actual consumption, purchase, or selection of meat
 In the presence of: (2) Non-tailored (3) information about health issues (4) targeting healthy individuals
 In the absence of: Information about (5) environmental, (6) socio-economic, (7) animal welfare, (8) or multiple issues, as well as (9) implicitly highlighting animal suffering, (10) self-monitoring, (11) goal-setting, (12) practical strategies to eat less meat, and (13) lifestyle counselling.
  1. Configurations of intervention components consistently not found to be associated with reductions in meat consumption, purchase, or selection. The overall solution covers 84% of the 31 interventions included in QCA and not found to be associated with reductions in meat consumption, purchase, or selection in all comparisons in which these configurations were evaluated. Raw coverage refers to the percentage of interventions not found to be associated with reductions in meat consumption, purchase, or selection covered by an intervention configuration. Raw consistency refers to the percentage of interventions within a configuration not found to be associated with the aforementioned outcomes