MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1647643627 · doi:10.1089/fpd.2014.1927

Scoping Review of Research on the Effectiveness of Food-Safety Education Interventions Directed at Consumers

2015· article· en· W1647643627 on OpenAlex
Bhairavi Sivaramalingam, Ian Young, Mai Pham, Lisa Waddell, Judy Greig, Mariola Mascarenhas, Andrew Papadopoulos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoodborne Pathogens and Disease · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionScope (computer science)Formative assessmentCurriculumMedical educationMedicineIntervention (counseling)PopulationQualitative researchRelevance (law)PsychologyEnvironmental healthNursingPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improper food handling by consumers at home is a major cause of foodborne illness. Therefore, effective education strategies are essential to change consumers' food safety attitudes and behaviors. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and characterize primary literature examining the effectiveness of consumer food-safety education interventions. Ten bibliographic databases were searched using a comprehensive search strategy. Citations were identified; two reviewers screened them for relevance and characterized relevant articles. To ensure results would be applicable to end users, stakeholders were engaged to provide input on the review scope, methods, and results. We identified 246 relevant articles, of which 150 were quantitative, 66 qualitative, and 30 mixed-method research studies. Most studies (64.2%) were published in the United States, using an uncontrolled before-and-after study design (31.3%), and investigated the effectiveness of community-based training sessions and workshops (52.0%). Research gaps were found in the number of randomized controlled studies conducted, academic- and school-based courses and curricula investigated, and interventions targeting high-risk populations (e.g., pregnant women, those who are immunocompromised) and using new media channels (e.g., social media). Key opportunities to enhance the utility of future primary research investigating consumer food-safety interventions include the following: using studies based on behavior-change theories and formative research; engaging the target population in the research; using validated instruments to measures outcomes; and reporting intervention characteristics and outcomes completely. Results of this review can be used to prioritize future primary research and decision-making in this area.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it