METHODS: Baseline and 1-year follow-up data from 5800 participants in the PREDIMED-Plus study were used. Each participant's food intake was estimated using validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires, and the adherence to MD using the Dietary Score. The influence of diet on environmental impact was assessed through the EAT-Lancet Commission tables. The influence of diet on environmental impact was assessed through the EAT-Lancet Commission tables. The association between MD adherence and its environmental impact was calculated using adjusted multivariate linear regression models.
RESULTS: After one year of intervention, the kcal/day consumed was significantly reduced (-125,1 kcal/day), adherence to a MD pattern was improved (+0,9) and the environmental impact due to the diet was significantly reduced (GHG: -361 g/CO2-eq; Acidification:-11,5 g SO2-eq; Eutrophication:-4,7 g PO4-eq; Energy use:-842,7 kJ; and Land use:-2,2 m2). Higher adherence to MD (high vs. low) was significantly associated with lower environmental impact both at baseline and one year follow-up. Meat products had the greatest environmental impact in all the factors analysed, both at baseline and at one-year follow-up, in spite of the reduction observed in their consumption.
CONCLUSIONS: A program promoting a MD, after one year of intervention, significantly reduced the environmental impact in all the factors analysed. Meat products had the greatest environmental impact in all the dimensions analysed.
METHODS: This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The literature search was carried out through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Original articles written in English and published between 2013 and 2023 were considered. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative synthesis was undertaken due to methodological heterogeneity in the included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 13 cross-sectional studies, two randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two mixed methods studies and one quasi-experiment with a control group were included. An overall low level of diabetes risk perception was reported particularly in those without apparent risk for diabetes. The 20 included studies reported widely varied measures for calculating diabetes risk perception. The influence of environmental factors on the risk perception of diabetes was highlighted.
LIMITATIONS: The use of study-specific and non-validated measures in the included studies weakens the authors' ability to compare across studies. The role of language and publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we included only English-language studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Another limitation is the exclusion of dimensions of risk perception such as optimistic bias as search terms.
CONCLUSION: The overall low risk perception of diabetes calls for urgent need of public health interventions to increase the risk perception of diabetes. In the future, researchers should ensure the validity and reliability of the measures being used. The influence of environmental factors on the diabetes risk perception indicates that diabetes preventive interventions targeting environmental factors may be effective in increasing the risk perception of diabetes.