Effectiveness of domestic food hygiene interventions on the microbiological quality of child food and childhood diarrhoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Foodborne diseases are an important cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Most diarrhoeal diseases can be caused by foodborne enteric infections, especially in children. The aim of this review is to synthesise the evidence for the effectiveness of domestic food hygiene interventions on the microbiological quality of child food and diarrhoea in children under five years of age. Methods and Findings: Electronic searches were performed across nine databases with screening and reviewing conducted independently by two reviewers. Eligible study designs included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, providing the food hygiene intervention was clearly described and there was a concurrent control. The two primary outcomes were the microbiological quality of child food and childhood diarrhoea. The risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale by two reviewers, and the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Of the 13,584 records identified, eleven studies were included for data extraction and analysis. Of four studies that assessed food contamination outcomes, three reported evidence of reduction in E. coli, faecal coliforms or other bacteria. Eight studies, including ten comparisons reported on diarrhoea. Standalone food hygiene interventions (n=2) reduced childhood diarrhoea by 51% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36, 0.65). There was no evidence of a reduction in childhood diarrhoea for food hygiene interventions combined with WASH, nutrition, and childhood development interventions (n=8) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68, 1.15). Overall, three studies had high risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was moderate for food contamination outcomes and low for diarrhoea outcomes.Conclusions: Our results suggest that standalone food hygiene interventions at the domestic level can improve the microbial quality of food and reduce childhood diarrhoea. These findings underscore the importance of dedicated food hygiene interventions for improving child health outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".