Investigating intervention components and their effectiveness in promoting environmentally sustainable diets: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global food systems contribute 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions, threatening the global temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. Diets in high-income countries exceed the recommendations for animal-based foods, whereas consumption of fruits and vegetables is below recommendations. Shifting to a more plant-based diet can reduce up to 30% of greenhouse gas emissions from diet and also reduce risk of chronic disease. Interventions addressing sustainable dietary behaviour, defined by a shift in dietary patterns and food-waste practices, could therefore improve population and planetary health, but knowledge of the interventions that are likely to be most effective in changing sustainable dietary behaviour is so far limited. This systematic review aimed to investigate, classify, and assess the effectiveness of interventions that promote environmentally sustainable diets in high-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental trials published from inception until June 16, 2022, evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention promoting environmentally sustainable dietary behaviour. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included adults and children from high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank classification) and used individual-level behaviour change interventions. Online choice experiments and studies reporting results on only change in fruit and vegetable consumption were excluded. Interventions were classified using the nine intervention functions of the behaviour change wheel. Data were extracted on number of participants, intervention characteristics, diet change (eg, meat consumption and fruit and vegetable intake), food waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and health outcomes. 13 studies were identified and included in the systematic review. Articles were from six different countries (ie, Canada, the USA, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy). Six of the nine intervention functions of the behaviour change wheel were used. Interventions using education had the most robust evidence base, whereas interventions using persuasion had the strongest effect on reducing meat consumption. Overall, interventions using education in combination with other factors were most successful. Five studies had high risk of bias, five had some concerns of bias, and three had low risk of bias. This systematic review provides insight into the effectiveness of behavioural interventions to meet health and climate change goals through promotion of environmentally sustainable diets. Evidence supports the use of multicomponent interventions through education, persuasion, and environmental restructuring to provide opportunity for change. Little high-quality research was available, and more robustly designed intervention studies are needed to inform future guidelines and policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".