Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2015 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

BMC Public Health 1/2015

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of food safety education interventions for consumers in developed countries

Zeitschrift:
BMC Public Health > Ausgabe 1/2015
Autoren:
Ian Young, Lisa Waddell, Shannon Harding, Judy Greig, Mariola Mascarenhas, Bhairavi Sivaramalingam, Mai T. Pham, Andrew Papadopoulos
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12889-015-2171-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study and read and approved the final manuscript. IY and BS implemented the search strategy. IY, LW, SH, JG, MM, and BS contributed to reviewing for the scoping review stages. IY, LW, and SH designed and pre-tested the risk-of-bias and data extraction forms. IY and SH conducted risk-of-bias assessment and data extraction. IY led the project management, implementation, analysis, and write-up.

Abstract

Background

Foodborne illness has a large public health and economic burden worldwide, and many cases are associated with food handled and prepared at home. Educational interventions are necessary to improve consumer food safety practices and reduce the associated burden of foodborne illness.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and targeted meta-analyses to investigate the effectiveness of food safety education interventions for consumers. Relevant articles were identified through a preliminary scoping review that included: a comprehensive search in 10 bibliographic databases with verification; relevance screening of abstracts; and extraction of article characteristics. Experimental studies conducted in developed countries were prioritized for risk-of-bias assessment and data extraction. Meta-analysis was conducted on data subgroups stratified by key study design-intervention-population-outcome categories and subgroups were assessed for their quality of evidence. Meta-regression was conducted where appropriate to identify possible sources of between-trial heterogeneity.

Results

We identified 79 relevant studies: 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 12 non-randomized controlled trials (NRTs); and 50 uncontrolled before-and-after studies. Several studies did not provide sufficient details on key design features (e.g. blinding), with some high risk-of-bias ratings due to incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. We identified a moderate to high confidence in results from two large RCTs investigating community- and school-based educational training interventions on behaviour outcomes in children and youth (median standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.20, range: 0.05, 0.35); in two small RCTs evaluating video and written instructional messaging on behavioural intentions in adults (SMD = 0.36, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.02, 0.69); and in two NRT studies for university-based education on attitudes of students and staff (SMD = 0.26, 95 % CI: 0.10, 0.43). Uncontrolled before-and-after study outcomes were very heterogeneous and we have little confidence that the meta-analysis results reflect the true effect. Some variation in outcomes was explained in meta-regression models, including a dose effect for behaviour outcomes in RCTs.

Conclusions

In controlled trials, food safety education interventions showed significant effects in some contexts; however, many outcomes were very heterogeneous and do not provide a strong quality of evidence to support decision-making. Future research in this area is needed using more robust experimental designs to build on interventions shown to be effective in uncontrolled before-and-after studies.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: PRISMA checklist. (DOCX 30 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Additional file 2: Full details of the search strategy. (DOCX 33 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Additional file 3: A copy of all review forms. (DOCX 63 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM3_ESM.docx
Additional file 4: Correlation values from previous studies. (XLSX 11 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx
Additional file 5: List of studies with more than two intervention and control groups. (DOCX 25 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM5_ESM.docx
Additional file 6: Citation list of all 77 relevant articles. (XLS 44 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM6_ESM.xls
Additional file 7: Summary table of PICO characteristics for each relevant article. (XLS 65 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM7_ESM.xls
Additional file 8: Detailed within-study risk-of-bias assessment results. (XLS 92 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM8_ESM.xls
Additional file 9: Forest plots for each meta-analysis subgroup. (DOCX 527 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM9_ESM.docx
Additional file 10: Detailed GRADE assessment results. (XLS 31 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM10_ESM.xls
Additional file 11: Sensitivity analysis of imputing different correlations for combining multiple outcome measures within a study. (XLS 29 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM11_ESM.xls
Additional file 12: Sensitivity analysis of imputing different pre-post correlations for paired meta-analyses. (XLS 27 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM12_ESM.xls
Additional file 13: Sensitivity analysis of comparing meta-analysis estimates for pre-post vs. pre-follow-up measurements. (XLS 26 kb)
12889_2015_2171_MOESM13_ESM.xls
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe