Understanding the Underlying Psychosocial Determinants of Safe Food Handling among Consumers to Mitigate the Transmission Risk of Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to explore the psychosocial factors related to consumers’ safe food-handling behaviors to reduce the transmission risk of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria through food products. To this end, we investigated the extent to which the variables of the health action process approach (HAPA) and subjective norms can predict safe food handling by consumers. Data were collected from a representative sample of consumers belonging to the German-speaking part of Switzerland by administering a self-reporting questionnaire. The results showed that risk perception, self-efficacy, and positive outcome expectancy (i.e., the motivational phase of HAPA) were significant predictors of the intentions to handle food in a safe manner (see graphical abstract below). Additionally, in the volitional phase of HAPA, intention was found to be a significant predictor of safe food-handling behaviors. Contrary to expectations based on HAPA, action planning did not mediate the intention–behavior relationship. Only a small part of the variance in behavior was explained by coping planning and action control. The findings confirmed that the motivational phase of HAPA may be useful for determining safe food handling.

Global Trends in Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals from 2017 to 2030

“…AMR in food-producing animals can also affect humans who work closely with animals or live in the vicinity of farms. Food products contaminated with drug-resistant bacteria can also potentially affect the health of humans with AMR pathogens [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. AMU on farms may also contaminate the environment with drug-resistant pathogens that are potentially harmful to humans [ 17 ].…”

Antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in food: which behaviour change strategies increase consumers’ risk awareness and preventive food-handling behaviour?

“…Items were adapted from previous studies (Chow & Mullan, 2010 ; Freivogel & Visschers, 2020 ; Kennedy et al, 2011 ). The questionnaire was pretested on a small sample ( n = 3) to check the items’ comprehension.…”

“…Hence, people in different stages are assumed to require different types of interventions to encourage or help them to move to the next stage towards behaviour change. Here, we focus on the health action process approach (HAPA; Schwarzer, 1992 ), a dominant model in the field of health psychology, which has also been applied in predicting hygienic food handling to reduce the transmission risk of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (Freivogel & Visschers, 2020 ). The HAPA describes a sequence of two self-regulatory processes that guide behaviour change: a pre-intentional motivational phase and a post-intentional volitional phase (Schwarzer, 1992 ).…”

“…Moreover, research has indicated that self-efficacy is a strong predictor in explaining consumers’ intention for safe food handling (Freivogel & Visschers, 2020 ; Haapala & Probart, 2004 ), but there is also an intention-behaviour gap in food handling (Mullan et al, 2013 ). Coping planning has proved to support the transition from intention to behaviour, whereas action planning was—contrary to the predictions of the HAPA—not found to be a mediator between intention and food handling behaviour in previous research (Freivogel & Visschers, 2020 ; Mullan, Wong, & O'Moore, 2010 ). It must be noted that action planning may be irrelevant in this case because there is little planning freedom in food preparation; this is because the time point (morning, lunchtime, or evening) and location (kitchen) of meals are usually predetermined.…”

“…It did not seem worthwhile to focus on pre-intentional self-efficacy because this factor is generally high for food-handling measures (e.g. Freivogel & Visschers, 2020 ; Mullan et al, 2010 ). In Study 2, we focused on the determinants of the volitional phase.…”