TY - JOUR
T1 - Effectiveness of an Online Programme to Tackle Individual’s Meat Intake through SElf-regulation (OPTIMISE)
T2 - A randomised controlled trial
AU - Frie, Kerstin
AU - Stewart, Cristina
AU - Piernas, Carmen
AU - Cook, Brian
AU - Jebb, Susan A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health programme (Livestock, Environment and People—LEAP), award number 205212/Z/16/Z. SAJ is funded by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. SAJ and CP are funded by the Oxford and Thames Valley NIHR Applied Research Centre. The authors gratefully acknowledge One Ltd who created and hosted the OPTIMISE website and Sarah Robinson (University of Birmingham) for her help in coding and analysing the strategy exploration and debriefing questionnaires. We would also like to thank all those who helped us test the website throughout its development and providing us with feedback.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Purpose: A reduction in meat intake is recommended to meet health and environmental sustainability goals. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an online self-regulation intervention to reduce meat consumption. Methods: One hundred and fifty one adult meat eaters were randomised 1:1 to a multi-component self-regulation intervention or an information-only control. The study lasted 9 weeks (1-week self-monitoring; 4-week active intervention; and 4-week maintenance phase). The intervention included goal-setting, self-monitoring, action-planning, and health and environmental feedback. Meat intake was estimated through daily questionnaires in weeks 1, 5 and 9. The primary outcome was change in meat consumption from baseline to five weeks. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline to nine weeks and change in red and processed meat intake. We used linear regression models to assess the effectiveness of all the above outcomes. Results: Across the whole sample, meat intake was 226 g/day at baseline, 118 g/day at five weeks, and 114 g/day at nine weeks. At five weeks, the intervention led to a 40 g/day (95%CI − 11.6,− 67.5, P = 0.006) reduction in meat intake, including a 35 g/day (95%CI − 7.7, − 61.7, P = 0.012) reduction in red and processed meat, relative to control. There were no significant differences in meat reduction after the four-week maintenance phase (− 12 g/day intervention vs control, 95% CI 19.1, − 43.4, P = 0.443). Participants said the intervention was informative and eye-opening. Conclusion: The intervention was popular among participants and helped achieve initial reductions in meat intake, but the longer-term reductions did not exceed control. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04961216, 14th July 2021, retrospectively registered.
AB - Purpose: A reduction in meat intake is recommended to meet health and environmental sustainability goals. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an online self-regulation intervention to reduce meat consumption. Methods: One hundred and fifty one adult meat eaters were randomised 1:1 to a multi-component self-regulation intervention or an information-only control. The study lasted 9 weeks (1-week self-monitoring; 4-week active intervention; and 4-week maintenance phase). The intervention included goal-setting, self-monitoring, action-planning, and health and environmental feedback. Meat intake was estimated through daily questionnaires in weeks 1, 5 and 9. The primary outcome was change in meat consumption from baseline to five weeks. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline to nine weeks and change in red and processed meat intake. We used linear regression models to assess the effectiveness of all the above outcomes. Results: Across the whole sample, meat intake was 226 g/day at baseline, 118 g/day at five weeks, and 114 g/day at nine weeks. At five weeks, the intervention led to a 40 g/day (95%CI − 11.6,− 67.5, P = 0.006) reduction in meat intake, including a 35 g/day (95%CI − 7.7, − 61.7, P = 0.012) reduction in red and processed meat, relative to control. There were no significant differences in meat reduction after the four-week maintenance phase (− 12 g/day intervention vs control, 95% CI 19.1, − 43.4, P = 0.443). Participants said the intervention was informative and eye-opening. Conclusion: The intervention was popular among participants and helped achieve initial reductions in meat intake, but the longer-term reductions did not exceed control. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04961216, 14th July 2021, retrospectively registered.
KW - Goal-setting
KW - Meat intake
KW - Meat reduction
KW - Multi-component intervention
KW - Self-monitoring
KW - Self-regulation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125559655&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00394-022-02828-9
DO - 10.1007/s00394-022-02828-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 35244757
AN - SCOPUS:85125559655
VL - 61
SP - 2615
EP - 2626
JO - European Journal of Nutrition
JF - European Journal of Nutrition
SN - 1436-6207
IS - 5
ER -