Department of Psychology, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, Indiana, USA.
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2021;61(4):622-635. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
To examine the relation between the consumption or avoidance of meat and psychological health and well-being. 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. 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. 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.
为了探究肉类消费或回避与心理健康和幸福感之间的关系。我们对在线数据库（PubMed、PsycINFO、CINAHL Plus、Medline 和 Cochrane Library）进行了系统检索，以寻找研究肉类消费者和回避者心理健康的原始研究。纳入标准为明确区分肉类消费者和回避者，以及与心理健康相关因素的数据。排除了研究肉类消费作为连续或多水平变量的研究。汇总了摘要数据，并对方法学严谨性进行了定性分析。主要结果是肉类消费者和回避者中抑郁、焦虑和相关疾病的患病率差异。次要结果包括情绪和自我伤害行为。有 18 项研究符合纳入/排除标准；共纳入 160257 名参与者（85843 名女性和 73232 名男性），其中 149559 名是肉食者，8584 名是素食者（年龄 11-96 岁），来自多个地理区域。方法学严谨性分析显示，这些研究的偏倚风险从低到高，结果的可信度从高到极低。18 项研究中有 11 项表明，素食与较差的心理健康有关，4 项研究结果不确定，3 项研究表明素食者的结果更好。最严谨的研究表明，避免食用肉类的参与者中，抑郁和/或焦虑的患病率或风险显著更高。研究肉类消费或回避与心理健康之间关系的研究在方法学严谨性、解释的有效性和结果的可信度方面差异很大。大多数研究，尤其是高质量的研究，表明避免食用肉类的人患抑郁、焦虑和/或自我伤害行为的比率或风险明显更高。虽然有一些关于时间关系的混合证据，但研究设计和缺乏严谨性排除了因果关系的推论。我们的研究不支持将避免食用肉类作为促进心理健康的策略。
