Table 2:
Moderator Analysis Results
| Study Characteristic | N (Studies) | N (Estimates) | SMD | 95% CIs | Subset p value | Moderator p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Outcome | ||||||
| Meat and animal products | 41 | 112 | 0.07 | [0.02, 0.12] | .007 | ref |
| Red and processed meat | 17 | 25 | 0.25 | [0.11, 0.38] | .002 | .046 |
| Population | ||||||
| University students/staff | 18 | 38 | 0.07 | [−0.03, 0.16] | .139 | ref |
| All ages | 3 | 6 | 0.04 | [−0.16, 0.25] | .361 | .733 |
| Adults | 17 | 61 | 0.09 | [0.01, 0.18] | .034 | .714 |
| Adolescents | 3 | 6 | 0.02 | [−0.4, 0.44] | .806 | .686 |
| Region | ||||||
| North America | 23 | 74 | 0.04 | [−0.01, 0.08] | .142 | ref |
| Europe | 14 | 28 | 0.14 | [0.02, 0.27] | .029 | .156 |
| Multi-region | 1 | 4 | 0.21 | [0.21, 0.21] | N/A | N/A |
| Asia + Australia | 2 | 5 | 0.13 | [−0.17, 0.43] | .116 | .220 |
| Publication Decade | ||||||
| 2000s | 6 | 8 | 0.16 | [−0.12, 0.43] | .199 | ref |
| 2010s | 12 | 31 | 0.07 | [−0.03, 0.17] | .13 | .464 |
| 2020s | 23 | 73 | 0.05 | [−0.01, 0.11] | .074 | .369 |
| Method of Delivery | ||||||
| Educational materials | 15 | 48 | 0.01 | [−0.04, 0.07] | .591 | ref |
| Online | 8 | 22 | 0.16 | [−0.02, 0.34] | .067 | .173 |
| Dietary consultation | 2 | 2 | 0.4 | [−3.36, 4.15] | .409 | .441 |
| In-cafeteria | 8 | 13 | 0.1 | [−0.04, 0.25] | .101 | .126 |
| Video | 11 | 27 | 0.01 | [−0.04, 0.07] | .487 | .553 |
Moderation analyses. The first p value column tests the hypothesis that the subset of studies with a given characteristic is significantly different from an SMD of zero. The second compares effects within a category to the reference for that moderator. N/A p values were not calculated due to an insufficient number of qualifying studies.