No abstract

Objective: Evidence of the health and environmental harms of red meat is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful to include in meat reduction messages. This study examined which harms consumers are most aware of and which most discourage them from wanting to eat red meat. Design: Within-subjects randomized experiment. Participants responded to questions about their awareness of, and perceived discouragement in response to, eight health and eight environmental harms of red meat presented in random order. Discouragement was assessed on a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale. Setting: Online survey. Participants: 544 US parents. Results: A minority of participants reported awareness that red meat contributes to health harms (ranging from 8% awareness for prostate cancer to 28% for heart disease) or environmental harms (ranging from 13% for water shortages and deforestation to 22% for climate change). Among specific harms, heart disease elicited the most discouragement (mean=2.82 out of 5), followed by early death (mean=2.79) and plants and animals going extinct (mean=2.75), though most harms elicited similar discouragement (range of means, 2.60 to 2.82). In multivariable analyses, participants who were younger, identified as Black, identified as politically liberal, had higher general perceptions that red meat is bad for health, and had higher usual red meat consumption reported being more discouraged from wanting to eat red meat in response to health and environmental harms (all p<0.05). Conclusions: Messages about a variety of health and environmental harms of red meat could inform consumers and motivate reductions in red meat consumption.

IN BRIEF Although the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trial, which spanned more than 8 years, did not find significant differences in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality between study groups, it did demonstrate significant differences in weight loss and maintenance. Using lessons learned from the Look AHEAD protocol, clinicians can help people with type 2 diabetes lose weight, improve glucose management, increase physical activity, alter eating patterns, and support long-term positive health outcomes. It remains important, however, to avoid assigning a higher priority to weight loss goals than to improvements in glucose management, long-term health outcomes, and quality of life.

No abstract

We estimated the degree to which language used in the high profile medical/public health/epidemiology literature implied causality using language linking exposures to outcomes and action recommendations; examined disconnects between language and recommendations; identified the most common linking phrases; and estimated how strongly linking phrases imply causality. We searched and screened for 1,170 articles from 18 high-profile journals (65 per journal) published from 2010-2019. Based on written framing and systematic guidance, three reviewers rated the degree of causality implied in abstracts and full text for exposure/outcome linking language and action recommendations. Reviewers rated the causal implication of exposure/outcome linking language as None (no causal implication) in 13.8%, Weak 34.2%, Moderate 33.2%, and Strong 18.7% of abstracts. The implied causality of action recommendations was higher than the implied causality of linking sentences for 44.5% or commensurate for 40.3% of articles. The most common linking word in abstracts was "associate" (45.7%). Reviewers’ ratings of linking word roots were highly heterogeneous; over half of reviewers rated "association" as having at least some causal implication. This research undercuts the assumption that avoiding "causal" words leads to clarity of interpretation in medical research.