Food hygiene practices and determinants among food handlers in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Food-borne diseases are a major public health concern worldwide, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), such as Ethiopia. Poor food hygiene practices primarily exacerbate food-borne illness transmission. Prior studies on the food hygiene practices among food handlers in Ethiopia were inconsistent. Therefore, this meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of good food hygiene practices and identify the determinants in Ethiopia. Methods The preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) instruments were used, and a systematic search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, POPLINE, HINARI, Science Direct, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar were systematically last searched on the 24th February 2022 for relevant articles. Only the observational studies that reported the proportion of good food hygiene practices and their associated factors among food handlers were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent authors. Articles with unclear methodologies and did not report the overall proportions of good food hygiene practice were excluded. The effect estimates for pooled proportion and pooled odds ratio (POR) along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined conducting using DerSimonian–Laird's random effect model. Results Among 817 retrieved studies, 23 eligible articles with a total sample size of 7153 study participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of good food hygiene practices among food handlers was 50.5% [95% CI: (41.6, 59.4%]; I2 = 98.7%, p value = 0.001]. Food handlers with formal education (POR = 4.60, 95% CI: 3.05, 6.93), good knowledge (POR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.26, 3.11), training (POR = 3.52, 95% CI: 2.35, 5.28), and a positive attitude (POR = 3.41, 95% CI: 2.52, 4.61) about food hygiene components, as well as regular medical checkups (POR = 6.75, 95% CI: 4.49) were significantly associated with good food hygiene practice. Conclusions Only half of Ethiopia's food handlers had good food hygiene practice. Implication of the study The key elements of effective food hygiene practice that will aid in the development of feasible interventions to increase food handler compliance with food hygiene components have been identified.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.268 | 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 teacher head, 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".