Food safety-related perspectives and practices of consumers and vendors in Ethiopia: A scoping review

Unraveling heterogeneity in farmer's adoption of mobile phone technologies: A systematic review

“…The generally low quality of the studies included in this review suggests a dire need to improve study designs, methods, and measurements to capture evidence on farmers' MPT adoption more satisfactorily. Similar to the suggestion by Parikh et al (2022), enhancing the quality of research and filling the knowledge gap will be crucial to influencing MPT adoption among farmers and transforming agricultural productivity. We, therefore, propose the following Methodological recommendations;…”

“…The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the well-established Mixed Method appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018 (Hong et al, 2018). This approach facilitates the simultaneous appraisal of all research study designs, including mixed, quantitative, and qualitative methods (Crowe & Sheppard, 2011;Parikh, Aparo, Nordhagen, & De Steur, 2022). Additionally, the MMAT criteria enable the evaluation of study objectives, research questions, methodology, reporting, and discussion of results for appropriateness and clarity (Simera, Moher, Hoey, Schulz, & Altman, 2010).…”

“…A score of 1 was allotted to each question when it met the quality criteria, a score of 2 when it did not meet the requirements, or a score of 3 when the reviewer could not tell (see footnote of supplementary Table 2 for the detailed MMAT checklist). Similar to Parikh et al (2022), MMAT scores representing the number of criteria met (rated 'yes') were divided by five and translated into percentages. Studies scoring at least 4 (80%) are appraised as "high quality," scores between 3-4 (60-80%) are appraised as "moderate quality," and studies that scored below 3(60%) are considered to be of "low quality."…”

Foodborne zoonoses control in low- and middle-income countries: Identifying aspects of interventions relevant to traditional markets which act as hurdles when mitigating disease transmission

“…Despite this heterogeneity, most consumers of products from traditional markets state that they care about food safety (Grace, 2015), although specific knowledge on hazards and protective measures are often lacking as demonstrated through a 2017 review on consumer demand for food safety in LMIC (Ortega and Tschirley, 2017). A dichotomy between consumer knowledge of a risk and their capacity to mitigate that risk has been demonstrate, for example, pork consumers in South Africa, were aware that T. solium cysticercosis could be harmful but lacked the knowledge on how to identify T. solium cysts in pork, they also lacked sufficient knowledge regarding butchery certification processes including disease control, slaughter, and food preparation (Sithole et al, 2020), In Nigeria, consumers at an informal market claimed to be knowledgeable and aware of hazards and food pathogens which caused health risks, yet still engaged in risky eating habits; they did not wash their hands prior to eating consumed products made from raw milk, drank untreated water from boreholes and consumed suya, a beef product prepared under unhygienic conditions and linked to many foodborne disease outbreaks in Nigeria (Ajayi and Salaudeen, 2014) and a scoping review of studies conducted in Ethiopia also highlighted the lack of translation from consumer knowledge and attitudes to food-safety and their food-safety practices (Parikh et al, 2022). Attitudes and behaviors, therefore, are highly influenced by customs and beliefs, and knowledge of disease risks does not always curb local customs or eating traditions.…”

“…It is important that educational interventions focussed on consumers consider the relevant contextual factors including beliefs and values and the capacity of consumers to enact change, as we discussed in relation to vendors. The gap between knowledge and practice as identified in several studies (Parikh et al, 2022), should be explicitly considered and educational interventions which aim to increase knowledge without creating an enabling environment for change may find success elusive. If consumers are to be agents of change, both through their own practices and through their demand for safe products, there is a need to establish their trust in the food systems that serve them.…”