Scoping Review of Research on the Effectiveness of Food-Safety Education Interventions Directed at Consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".