001416656 001__ 1416656 001416656 005__ 20230227161839.0 001416656 022__ $$a1040-8398 001416656 02470 $$a10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505$$2DOI 001416656 02470 $$ahttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12419/588 001416656 037__ $$aIR 001416656 041__ $$aeng 001416656 245__ $$aMeat and Mental Health: a Systematic Review of Meat Abstention and Depression, Anxiety, and Related Phenomena 001416656 260__ $$bTaylor & Francis 001416656 269__ $$a2020-04-20 001416656 336__ $$aArticle 001416656 520__ $$a<p>Objective: To examine the relation between the consumption or avoidance of meat and psychological health and well-being.</p> <p>Methods: A systematic search of online databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Medline, and Cochrane Library) was conducted for primary research examining psychological health in meat-consumers and meat-abstainers. Inclusion criteria were the provision of a clear distinction between meat-consumers and meat-abstainers, and data on factors related to psychological health. Studies examining meat consumption as a continuous or multi-level variable were excluded. Summary data were compiled, and qualitative analyses of methodologic rigor were conducted. The main outcome was the disparity in the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and related conditions in meat-consumers versus meat-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included mood and self-harm behaviors</p> <p>Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria; representing 160,257 participants (85,843 females and 73,232 males) with 149,559 meat-consumers and 8584 meat-abstainers (11 to 96&thinsp;years) from multiple geographic regions. Analysis of methodologic rigor revealed that the studies ranged from low to severe risk of bias with high to very low confidence in results. Eleven of the 18 studies demonstrated that meat-abstention was associated with poorer psychological health, four studies were equivocal, and three showed that meat-abstainers had better outcomes. The most rigorous studies demonstrated that the prevalence or risk of depression and/or anxiety were significantly greater in participants who avoided meat consumption.</p> <p>Conclusion: Studies examining the relation between the consumption or avoidance of meat and psychological health varied substantially in methodologic rigor, validity of interpretation, and confidence in results. The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors. There was mixed evidence for temporal relations, but study designs and a lack of rigor precluded inferences of causal relations. Our study does not support meat avoidance as a strategy to benefit psychological health.</p> 001416656 6531_ $$aanxiety 001416656 6531_ $$adepression 001416656 6531_ $$ameat 001416656 6531_ $$amental health 001416656 6531_ $$aself-harm 001416656 6531_ $$avegan 001416656 6531_ $$avegetarianism 001416656 690__ $$aUniversity of Southern Indiana 001416656 690__ $$aUniversity of Maryland 001416656 690__ $$aThe University of Queensland, School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana 001416656 690__ $$aEvolvingFX, Jupiter, Florida 001416656 7001_ $$aDobersek, Urska$$uUniversity of Southern Indiana 001416656 7001_ $$aWy, Gabrielle 001416656 7001_ $$aAdkins, Joshua 001416656 7001_ $$aAltmeyer, Sydney 001416656 7001_ $$aKrout, Kaitlin 001416656 7001_ $$aLavie, Carl 001416656 7001_ $$aArcher, Edward 001416656 773__ $$tCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 001416656 8564_ $$944ac8a8f-6cbe-42a2-9d2b-30e02a83f4a1$$s1593642$$uhttps://library.usi.edu/record/1416656/files/Meat%20and%20mental%20health%20a%20systematic%20review%20of%20meat%20abstention%20and%20depression%20anxiety%20and%20related%20phenomena.pdf 001416656 904__ $$a2020-04-24T13:44:47Z$$baccessioned 001416656 904__ $$a2020-04-24T13:44:47Z$$bavailable 001416656 905__ $$a/collection_2/5/dublin_core.xml 001416656 907__ $$aObjective: To examine the relation between the consumption or avoidance of meat and psychological health and well-being. Methods: A systematic search of online databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Medline, and Cochrane Library) was conducted for primary research examining psychological health in meat-consumers and meat-abstainers. Inclusion criteria were the provision of a clear distinction between meat-consumers and meat-abstainers, and data on factors related to psychological health. Studies examining meat consumption as a continuous or multi-level variable were excluded. Summary data were compiled, and qualitative analyses of methodologic rigor were conducted. The main outcome was the disparity in the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and related conditions in meat-consumers versus meat-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included mood and self-harm behaviors Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria; representing 160,257 participants (85,843 females and 73,232 males) with 149,559 meat-consumers and 8584 meat-abstainers (11 to 96 years) from multiple geographic regions. Analysis of methodologic rigor revealed that the studies ranged from low to severe risk of bias with high to very low confidence in results. Eleven of the 18 studies demonstrated that meat-abstention was associated with poorer psychological health, four studies were equivocal, and three showed that meat-abstainers had better outcomes. The most rigorous studies demonstrated that the prevalence or risk of depression and/or anxiety were significantly greater in participants who avoided meat consumption. Conclusion: Studies examining the relation between the consumption or avoidance of meat and psychological health varied substantially in methodologic rigor, validity of interpretation, and confidence in results. The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors. There was mixed evidence for temporal relations, but study designs and a lack of rigor precluded inferences of causal relations. Our study does not support meat avoidance as a strategy to benefit psychological health. 001416656 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:1416656$$pGLOBAL_SET 001416656 980__ $$aMANUSCRIPT