Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study

Background. In addition to social and environmental determinants, people’s values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults’ values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the fa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of environmental research and public health 2021-11, Vol.18 (21), p.11585
Hauptverfasser: Valli, Claudia, Santero, Marilina, Prokop-Dorner, Anna, Howatt, Victoria, Johnston, Bradley C., Zajac, Joanna, Han, Mi-Ah, Pereira, Ana, Kenji Nampo, Fernando, Guyatt, Gordon H., Bala, Malgorzata M., Alonso-Coello, Pablo, Rabassa, Montserrat
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 21
container_start_page 11585
container_title International journal of environmental research and public health
container_volume 18
creator Valli, Claudia
Santero, Marilina
Prokop-Dorner, Anna
Howatt, Victoria
Johnston, Bradley C.
Zajac, Joanna
Han, Mi-Ah
Pereira, Ana
Kenji Nampo, Fernando
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Bala, Malgorzata M.
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Rabassa, Montserrat
description Background. In addition to social and environmental determinants, people’s values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults’ values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the face of possible undesirable health consequences. Methods. A cross-sectional mixed-methods study including a quantitative assessment through an online survey, a qualitative inquiry through semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up assessment through a telephone survey. We performed descriptive statistics, logistic regressions, and thematic analysis. Results. Of 304 participants, over 75% were unwilling to stop their consumption of either URM or PM, and of those unwilling to stop, over 80% were also unwilling to reduce. Men were less likely to stop meat intake than women (odds ratios < 0.4). From the semi-structured interviews, we identified three main themes: the social and/or family context of meat consumption, health- and non-health-related concerns about meat, and uncertainty of the evidence. At three months, 63% of participants reported no changes in meat intake. Conclusions. When informed about the cancer incidence and mortality risks of meat consumption, most respondents would not reduce their intake. Public health and clinical nutrition guidelines should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with population values and preferences.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/ijerph182111585
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8582724</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2596020169</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-33557498a4012d9bf3a846e74667ff348890847676eec82e98448c0f657d69813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1LAzEQxYMoVqtnrwEvXlaTTTYfHgQpfkGLYtVrSDez7dbtbk2yYv97Vy2iPc0M8-PxeA-hI0pOGdPkrJyDX86oSimlmcq20B4VgiRcELr9Z--h_RDmhDDFhd5FPcalJETrPTS5BVvFGX6EykZw-MVWLQRsa4cfPBTgoc67-xGm1ruynuIR2Ijv6mhf4Rxf4oFvQkjGkMeyqW2FR-UHuGQEcda4gMexdasDtFPYKsDhevbR8_XV0-A2Gd7f3A0uh0nOtIoJY1kmuVaWE5o6PSmY7dyC5ELIomBcKU0Ul0IKgFyloBXnKieFyKQTWlHWRxc_ust2sgCXQx29rczSlwvrV6axpfn_qcuZmTbvRmUqlSnvBE7WAr5561KIZlGGHKrK1tC0waSZllxlgqgOPd5A503ruwC-KUFSQoXuqLMfKv9KqYvz1wwl5qs_s9Ef-wRaDox1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2596020169</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study</title><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Valli, Claudia ; Santero, Marilina ; Prokop-Dorner, Anna ; Howatt, Victoria ; Johnston, Bradley C. ; Zajac, Joanna ; Han, Mi-Ah ; Pereira, Ana ; Kenji Nampo, Fernando ; Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Bala, Malgorzata M. ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo ; Rabassa, Montserrat</creator><creatorcontrib>Valli, Claudia ; Santero, Marilina ; Prokop-Dorner, Anna ; Howatt, Victoria ; Johnston, Bradley C. ; Zajac, Joanna ; Han, Mi-Ah ; Pereira, Ana ; Kenji Nampo, Fernando ; Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Bala, Malgorzata M. ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo ; Rabassa, Montserrat</creatorcontrib><description>Background. In addition to social and environmental determinants, people’s values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults’ values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the face of possible undesirable health consequences. Methods. A cross-sectional mixed-methods study including a quantitative assessment through an online survey, a qualitative inquiry through semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up assessment through a telephone survey. We performed descriptive statistics, logistic regressions, and thematic analysis. Results. Of 304 participants, over 75% were unwilling to stop their consumption of either URM or PM, and of those unwilling to stop, over 80% were also unwilling to reduce. Men were less likely to stop meat intake than women (odds ratios &lt; 0.4). From the semi-structured interviews, we identified three main themes: the social and/or family context of meat consumption, health- and non-health-related concerns about meat, and uncertainty of the evidence. At three months, 63% of participants reported no changes in meat intake. Conclusions. When informed about the cancer incidence and mortality risks of meat consumption, most respondents would not reduce their intake. Public health and clinical nutrition guidelines should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with population values and preferences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1660-4601</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1661-7827</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1660-4601</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111585</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34770099</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Clinical nutrition ; Cross-sectional studies ; Dietary guidelines ; Food preferences ; Likert scale ; Meat ; Medical research ; Mixed methods research ; Mortality ; Normal distribution ; Nutrition ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Public health ; Questionnaires ; Statistical analysis ; Variables</subject><ispartof>International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021-11, Vol.18 (21), p.11585</ispartof><rights>2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 by the authors. 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-33557498a4012d9bf3a846e74667ff348890847676eec82e98448c0f657d69813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-33557498a4012d9bf3a846e74667ff348890847676eec82e98448c0f657d69813</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1213-6952 ; 0000-0003-1978-7264 ; 0000-0003-3575-469X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8582724/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8582724/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Valli, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santero, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prokop-Dorner, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howatt, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnston, Bradley C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zajac, Joanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Mi-Ah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenji Nampo, Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guyatt, Gordon H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bala, Malgorzata M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabassa, Montserrat</creatorcontrib><title>Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study</title><title>International journal of environmental research and public health</title><description>Background. In addition to social and environmental determinants, people’s values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults’ values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the face of possible undesirable health consequences. Methods. A cross-sectional mixed-methods study including a quantitative assessment through an online survey, a qualitative inquiry through semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up assessment through a telephone survey. We performed descriptive statistics, logistic regressions, and thematic analysis. Results. Of 304 participants, over 75% were unwilling to stop their consumption of either URM or PM, and of those unwilling to stop, over 80% were also unwilling to reduce. Men were less likely to stop meat intake than women (odds ratios &lt; 0.4). From the semi-structured interviews, we identified three main themes: the social and/or family context of meat consumption, health- and non-health-related concerns about meat, and uncertainty of the evidence. At three months, 63% of participants reported no changes in meat intake. Conclusions. When informed about the cancer incidence and mortality risks of meat consumption, most respondents would not reduce their intake. Public health and clinical nutrition guidelines should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with population values and preferences.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Clinical nutrition</subject><subject>Cross-sectional studies</subject><subject>Dietary guidelines</subject><subject>Food preferences</subject><subject>Likert scale</subject><subject>Meat</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Mixed methods research</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Normal distribution</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Variables</subject><issn>1660-4601</issn><issn>1661-7827</issn><issn>1660-4601</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1LAzEQxYMoVqtnrwEvXlaTTTYfHgQpfkGLYtVrSDez7dbtbk2yYv97Vy2iPc0M8-PxeA-hI0pOGdPkrJyDX86oSimlmcq20B4VgiRcELr9Z--h_RDmhDDFhd5FPcalJETrPTS5BVvFGX6EykZw-MVWLQRsa4cfPBTgoc67-xGm1ruynuIR2Ijv6mhf4Rxf4oFvQkjGkMeyqW2FR-UHuGQEcda4gMexdasDtFPYKsDhevbR8_XV0-A2Gd7f3A0uh0nOtIoJY1kmuVaWE5o6PSmY7dyC5ELIomBcKU0Ul0IKgFyloBXnKieFyKQTWlHWRxc_ust2sgCXQx29rczSlwvrV6axpfn_qcuZmTbvRmUqlSnvBE7WAr5561KIZlGGHKrK1tC0waSZllxlgqgOPd5A503ruwC-KUFSQoXuqLMfKv9KqYvz1wwl5qs_s9Ef-wRaDox1</recordid><startdate>20211104</startdate><enddate>20211104</enddate><creator>Valli, Claudia</creator><creator>Santero, Marilina</creator><creator>Prokop-Dorner, Anna</creator><creator>Howatt, Victoria</creator><creator>Johnston, Bradley C.</creator><creator>Zajac, Joanna</creator><creator>Han, Mi-Ah</creator><creator>Pereira, Ana</creator><creator>Kenji Nampo, Fernando</creator><creator>Guyatt, Gordon H.</creator><creator>Bala, Malgorzata M.</creator><creator>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creator><creator>Rabassa, Montserrat</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1213-6952</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1978-7264</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3575-469X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211104</creationdate><title>Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study</title><author>Valli, Claudia ; Santero, Marilina ; Prokop-Dorner, Anna ; Howatt, Victoria ; Johnston, Bradley C. ; Zajac, Joanna ; Han, Mi-Ah ; Pereira, Ana ; Kenji Nampo, Fernando ; Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Bala, Malgorzata M. ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo ; Rabassa, Montserrat</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-33557498a4012d9bf3a846e74667ff348890847676eec82e98448c0f657d69813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Clinical nutrition</topic><topic>Cross-sectional studies</topic><topic>Dietary guidelines</topic><topic>Food preferences</topic><topic>Likert scale</topic><topic>Meat</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Mixed methods research</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Normal distribution</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Variables</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Valli, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santero, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prokop-Dorner, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howatt, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnston, Bradley C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zajac, Joanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Mi-Ah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenji Nampo, Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guyatt, Gordon H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bala, Malgorzata M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabassa, Montserrat</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International journal of environmental research and public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Valli, Claudia</au><au>Santero, Marilina</au><au>Prokop-Dorner, Anna</au><au>Howatt, Victoria</au><au>Johnston, Bradley C.</au><au>Zajac, Joanna</au><au>Han, Mi-Ah</au><au>Pereira, Ana</au><au>Kenji Nampo, Fernando</au><au>Guyatt, Gordon H.</au><au>Bala, Malgorzata M.</au><au>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</au><au>Rabassa, Montserrat</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study</atitle><jtitle>International journal of environmental research and public health</jtitle><date>2021-11-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>21</issue><spage>11585</spage><pages>11585-</pages><issn>1660-4601</issn><issn>1661-7827</issn><eissn>1660-4601</eissn><abstract>Background. In addition to social and environmental determinants, people’s values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults’ values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the face of possible undesirable health consequences. Methods. A cross-sectional mixed-methods study including a quantitative assessment through an online survey, a qualitative inquiry through semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up assessment through a telephone survey. We performed descriptive statistics, logistic regressions, and thematic analysis. Results. Of 304 participants, over 75% were unwilling to stop their consumption of either URM or PM, and of those unwilling to stop, over 80% were also unwilling to reduce. Men were less likely to stop meat intake than women (odds ratios &lt; 0.4). From the semi-structured interviews, we identified three main themes: the social and/or family context of meat consumption, health- and non-health-related concerns about meat, and uncertainty of the evidence. At three months, 63% of participants reported no changes in meat intake. Conclusions. When informed about the cancer incidence and mortality risks of meat consumption, most respondents would not reduce their intake. Public health and clinical nutrition guidelines should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with population values and preferences.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>34770099</pmid><doi>10.3390/ijerph182111585</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1213-6952</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1978-7264</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3575-469X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1660-4601
ispartof International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021-11, Vol.18 (21), p.11585
issn 1660-4601
1661-7827
1660-4601
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8582724
source MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; PubMed Central Open Access
subjects Cancer
Clinical nutrition
Cross-sectional studies
Dietary guidelines
Food preferences
Likert scale
Meat
Medical research
Mixed methods research
Mortality
Normal distribution
Nutrition
Polls & surveys
Public health
Questionnaires
Statistical analysis
Variables
title Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T05%3A03%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Health%20Related%20Values%20and%20Preferences%20Regarding%20Meat%20Intake:%20A%20Cross-Sectional%20Mixed-Methods%20Study&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20environmental%20research%20and%20public%20health&rft.au=Valli,%20Claudia&rft.date=2021-11-04&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=21&rft.spage=11585&rft.pages=11585-&rft.issn=1660-4601&rft.eissn=1660-4601&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/ijerph182111585&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2596020169%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2596020169&rft_id=info:pmid/34770099&rfr_iscdi=true