This cross-sectional study finds a strong link between meat attachment and consumption patterns in primary care patients, suggesting useful clinical applications.
Background: The 16-item Meat Attachment Questionnaire measures emotional and cognitive attachment to meat across four dimensions: hedonism, affinity, entitlement, and dependence. A shorter version, the four-item Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ-4), with scores ranging from 4 to 20, has recently been validated in French (MAQf-4). This study is a planned secondary analysis of an existing dataset and examines the association between meat attachment, as measured by the MAQf-4, and meat consumption patterns among primary care patients in the Geneva area. Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed 336 primary care patients (204, 61.3%, women; participation rate = 79.1%) from the Geneva area, collecting data on demographics, meat consumption frequencies (poultry, beef, veal, and pork), and MAQf-4 scores. Differences in MAQf-4 scores by demographic characteristics were analyzed using independent t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multivariable linear regressions. Additionally, ANOVA and multivariable linear regressions assessed the relationship between MAQf-4 scores and meat consumption patterns. Results: The average MAQf-4 score was 13.6 (standard deviation (SD) 3.6), with men scoring higher than women (14.6 vs. 13.0, adjusted difference: 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.6), adjusted P-value <0.001). Poultry was the most frequently consumed meat, with 124 (39%) participants eating it more than once a week. Higher MAQf-4 scores were significantly associated with greater meat consumption across all categories; for instance, those consuming poultry more than once a week had a mean score of 14.6 compared to 9.9 for non-consumers (adjusted difference: 4.2 (95% CI 3.0-5.5), adjusted P-value < 0.001). Conclusions: The MAQf-4 is strongly associated with meat consumption patterns. Its brevity makes it a potentially useful tool for research and clinical settings to assess meat attachment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sebo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: