CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Food Safety and HygieneSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Barriers and Facilitators to Safe Food Handling among Consumers: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research Studies

Open access
Young, Ian, Waddell, Lisa·2016·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0167695PMC PMC5132243
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Foodborne illness has a substantial health and economic burden on society, and most cases are believed to be due to unsafe food handling practices at home. Several qualitative research studies have been conducted to investigate consumers' perspectives, opinions, and experiences with safe food handling at home, and these studies provide insights into the underlying barriers and facilitators affecting their safe food handling behaviours. We conducted a systematic review of previously published qualitative studies in this area to synthesize the main across-study themes and to develop recommendations for future consumer interventions and research. The review was conducted using the following steps: comprehensive search strategy; relevance screening of abstracts; relevance confirmation of articles; study quality assessment; thematic synthesis of the results; and quality-of-evidence assessment. A total of 39 relevant articles reporting on 37 unique qualitative studies were identified. Twenty-one barriers and 10 facilitators to safe food handling were identified, grouped across six descriptive themes: confidence and perceived risk; knowledge-behaviour gap; habits and heuristics; practical and lifestyle constraints; food preferences; and societal and social influences. Our overall confidence that each barrier and facilitator represents the phenomenon of interest was rated as high (n = 11), moderate (11), and low (9). Overarching analytical themes included: 1) safe food handling behaviours occur as part of a complex interaction of everyday consumer practices and habituation; 2) most consumers are not concerned about food safety and are generally not motivated to change their behaviours based on new knowledge about food safety risks; and 3) consumers are amenable to changing their safe food handling habits through relevant social pressures. Key implications and recommendations for research, policy and practice are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0167695

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Consumer-focused evidence on food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices remains relatively scarce compared with high-income countries.

    “consumer-focused evidence on food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices remains relatively scarce compared with high-income countries [73,74].”

    From Food Safety Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) of Urban Consumers in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries (LLMICs): A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Results (Study characteristics) list all 37 included studies in high-income countries, and the Discussion says most research was conducted in the US and calls for research in other countries. This supports a geographic evidence gap, but the review covers qualitative studies of barriers and facilitators to safe food handling, not consumer food-safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices research generally. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 112

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. [2]Scallan E, Griffin PM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe R V, Hoekstra RM. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States–unspecified agents. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011; 17: 16– 22. 10.3201/eid1701.091101p2 21192849 PMC3204615 · DOI
  2. [4]Thomas MK, Murray R, Flockhart L, Pintar K, Fazil A, Nesbitt A, et al Estimates of foodborne illness-related hospitalizations and deaths in Canada for 30 specified pathogens and unspecified agents. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2015; 12: 820– 827. 10.1089/fpd.2015.1966 26259128 PMC4601674 · DOI
  3. [5]Thomas MK, Murray R, Flockhart L, Pintar K, Pollari F, Fazil A, et al Estimates of the burden of foodborne illness in Canada for 30 specified pathogens and unspecified agents, circa 2006. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2013; 10: 639– 648. 10.1089/fpd.2012.1389 23659355 PMC3696931 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [6]McLinden T, Sargeant JM, Thomas MK, Papadopoulos A, Fazil A. Component costs of foodborne illness: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14: 509 10.1186/1471-2458-14-509 24885154 PMC4041898 · DOI
  5. [7]Vrbova L, Johnson K, Whitfield Y, Middleton D. A descriptive study of reportable gastrointestinal illnesses in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2009. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 970 10.1186/1471-2458-12-970 23145487 PMC3503727 · DOI
  6. [8]Keegan VA, Majowicz SE, Pearl DL, Marshall BJ, Sittler N, Knowles L, et al Epidemiology of enteric disease in C-EnterNet’s pilot site—Waterloo region, Ontario, 1990 to 2004. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2009; 20: 79– 87. 20808465 PMC2770317
  7. [9]Lukacsovics A, Nesbitt A, Marshall B, Asplin R, Stone J, Embree G, et al Using environmental health officers’ opinions to inform the source attribution of enteric disease: further analysis of the “most likely source of infection”. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14: 1258 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1258 25496465 PMC4364104 · DOI
  8. [10]European Food Safety Authority, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2014. EFSA J. 2015; 13: 4329.
  9. [11]Sivaramalingam B, Young I, Pham MT, Waddell L, Greig J, Mascarenhas M, et al Scoping review of research on the effectiveness of food-safety education interventions directed at consumers. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2015; 12: 561– 570. 10.1089/fpd.2014.1927 26135891 · DOI
  10. [12]Redmond EC, Griffith CJ. Consumer food handling in the home: a review of food safety studies. J Food Prot. 2003; 66: 130– 161. 12540194
  11. [13]Evans EW, Redmond EC. Behavioral risk factors associated with listeriosis in the home: a review of consumer food safety studies. J Food Prot. 2014; 77: 510– 521. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-238 24674447 · DOI
  12. [14]Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 5th ed New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications Inc; 2015.
  13. [15]Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1: 6– 20. 16053580
  14. [19]Medeiros L, Hillers V, Kendall P, Mason A. Evaluation of food safety education for consumers. J Nutr Educ. 2001; 33 Suppl 1: S27– 34. 12857542
  15. [20]Walsh D, Downe S. Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery. 2006; 22: 108– 119. 10.1016/j.midw.2005.05.004 16243416 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [25]Meysenburg R, Albrecht JA, Litchfield R, Ritter-Gooder PK. Food safety knowledge, practices and beliefs of primary food preparers in families with young children. A mixed methods study. Appetite. 2014; 73: 121– 131. 10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.015 24211815 · DOI
  17. [26]Coleman HH. Focus groups on consumer attitudes on food safety educational materials in Kentucky. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Kentucky. 2007. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/471/.
  18. [27]Cates SC, Kosa KM, Teneyck T, Jaykus L-A, Moore C, Cowen P. Older adults’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding listeriosis prevention. Food Prot Trends. 2006; 26: 774– 785.
  19. [28]Hoffman EW, Bergmann V, Shultz JA, Kendall P, Medeiros LC, Hillers VN. Application of a five-step message development model for food safety education materials targeting people with HIV/AIDS. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005; 105: 1597– 1604. 10.1016/j.jada.2005.07.035 16183361 · DOI
  20. [29]Feng Y. Aspects of food safety education and communication: consumer perception and behavior evaluation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. 2015.
  21. [30]Vlasin-Marty KA. Food safety of Native American families with young children in Nebraska: a mixed methods study. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2013. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/186/.
  22. [31]Redmond EC. Food safety behaviour in the home: development, application and evaluation of a social marketing food safety education initiative. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wales. 2002.
  23. [32]Trepka MJ, Newman FL, Dixon Z, Huffman FG. Food safety practices among pregnant women and mothers in the women, infants, and children program, Miami, Florida. J Food Prot. 2007; 70: 1230– 1237. 17536684
  24. [34]Wills WJ, Meah A, Dickinson AM, Short F. ‘I don’t think I ever had food poisoning’. A practice-based approach to understanding foodborne disease that originates in the home. Appetite. 2015; 85: 118– 125. 10.1016/j.appet.2014.11.022 25464023 · DOI
  25. [35]Dworkin MS, Pratap P, Jackson U, Chakraborty A. Efficacy of a culturally-tailored educational photonovella addressing prevention of meat and poultry-related food poisoning for African Americans of low socioeconomic status. Food Prot Trends. 2015; 35: 176– 184.
  26. [36]Gettings MA, Kiernan NE. Practices and perceptions of food safety among seniors who prepare meals at home. J Nutr Educ. 2001; 33: 148– 154. 11953230
  27. [38]Athearn PN, Kendall PA, Hillers VV, Schroeder M, Bergmann V, Chen G, et al Awareness and acceptance of current food safety recommendations during pregnancy. Matern Child Health J. 2004; 8: 149– 162. 15499871
  28. [39]House E, Coveney J. ‘I mean I expect that it’s pretty safe’: Perceptions of food trust in pregnancy—implications for primary health care practice. Australas Med J. 2013; 6: 358– 366. 10.4066/AMJ.2013.1748 23940496 PMC3738879 · DOI
  29. [40]Parra PA, Kim H, Shapiro MA, Gravani RB, Bradley SD. Home food safety knowledge, risk perception, and practices among Mexican-Americans. Food Control. 2014; 37: 115– 125.
  30. [41]Yarrow L, Remig VM, Higgins MM. Food safety awareness: concerns, practices, and openness to change of college students with health and non-health majors. Food Prot Trends. 2008; 28: 585– 591.
  31. [44]Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2007; 19: 349– 357. 17872937
  32. [46]Warde A. After taste: culture, consumption and theories of practice. J Consum Cult. 2014; 14: 279– 303.
  33. [47]Milne R. A focus group study of food safety practices in relation to listeriosis among the over-60s. Crit Public Health. 2011; 21: 485– 495.
  34. [48]Dickinson A, Wills W, Meah A, Short F. Food safety and older people: the Kitchen Life study. Br J Community Nurs. 2014; 19: 226, 228– 232. 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.5.226 24784557 · DOI
  35. [49]Kendall H, Brennan M, Seal C, Ladha C, Kuznesof S. Behind the kitchen door: a novel mixed method approach for exploring the food provisioning practices of the older consumer. Food Qual Prefer. 2016; 53: 105– 116.
  36. [51]Townsend MS, Johns M, Shilts MK, Farfan-Ramirez L. Evaluation of a USDA nutrition education program for low-income youth. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006; 38: 30– 41. 10.1016/j.jneb.2005.11.014 16595276 · DOI
  37. [52]Dollahite JS, Pijai EI, Scott-Pierce M, Parker C, Trochim W. A randomized controlled trial of a community-based nutrition education program for low-income parents. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014; 46: 102– 109. 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.09.004 24268300 · DOI
  38. [53]Young I, Waddell L, Harding S, Greig J, Mascarenhas M, Sivaramalingam B, et al A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of food safety education interventions for consumers in developed countries. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 822 10.1186/s12889-015-2171-x 26307055 PMC4548310 · DOI · Paper page
  39. [54]Quick V, Corda KW, Chamberlin B, Schaffner DW, Byrd-Bredbenner C. Ninja Kitchen to the rescue. Br Food J. 2013; 115: 686– 699.
  40. [55]Mayer AB, Harrison JA. Safe eats: An evaluation of the use of social media for food safety education. J Food Prot. 2012; 75: 1453– 1463. 10.4315/0362-028X.11-551 22856569 · DOI
  41. [56]Winter CK, Fraser AM, Gleason JB, Hovey SK, McCurdy SM, Snider OS. Food safety education using music parodies. J Food Sci Educ. 2009; 8: 62– 67.
  42. [57]Boqvist S, Fernström L-L, Alsanius BW, Lindqvist R. Escherichia coli O157:H7 reduction in hamburgers with regard to premature browning of minced beef, colour score and method for determining doneness. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015; 215: 109– 116. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.08.023 26363767 · DOI
  43. [58]Lyon BG, Berry BW, Soderberg D, Clinch N. Visual color and doneness indicators and the incidence of premature brown color in beef patties cooked to four end point temperatures. J Food Prot. 2000; 63: 1389– 1398. 11041139
  44. [59]Mazengia E, Fisk C, Liao G, Huang H, Meschke J. Direct observational study of the risk of cross-contamination during raw poultry handling: practices in private homes. Food Prot Trends. 2015; 35: 8– 23.
  45. [60]Nesbitt A, Thomas MK, Marshall B, Snedeker K, Meleta K, Watson B, et al Baseline for consumer food safety knowledge and behaviour in Canada. Food Control. 2014; 38: 157– 173.
  46. [61]Patil SR, Cates S, Morales R. Consumer food safety knowledge, practices, and demographic differences: findings from a meta-analysis. J Food Prot. 2005; 68: 1884– 1894. 16161688
  47. [62]Fein SB, Lando AM, Levy AS, Teisl MF, Noblet C. Trends in U.S. consumers’ safe handling and consumption of food and their risk perceptions, 1988 through 2010. J Food Prot. 2011; 74: 1513– 1523. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-017 21902921 · DOI
  48. [63]McCurdy SM, Hillers V, Cann SE. Consumer reaction and interest in using food thermometers when cooking small or thin meat items. Food Prot Trends. 2005; 25: 826– 831.
  49. [64]Henley SC, Gleason J, Quinlan JJ. Don’t wash your chicken!: A food safety education campaign to address a common food mishandling practice. Food Prot Trends. 2016; 36: 43– 53.
  50. [65]Wang H, Singhal A. East Los High: transmedia edutainment to promote the sexual and reproductive health of young Latina/o Americans. Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 1002– 1010. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303072 27077336 PMC4880269 · DOI
  51. [67]Mullan BA, Wong CL. Hygienic food handling behaviours. An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite. 2009; 52: 757– 761. 10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.007 19501776 · DOI
  52. [68]Mari S, Tiozzo B, Capozza D, Ravarotto L. Are you cooking your meat enough? The efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior in predicting a best practice to prevent salmonellosis. Food Res Int. 2012; 45: 1175– 1183.
  53. [69]Fulham E, Mullan B. Hygienic food handling behaviors: attempting to bridge the intention-behavior gap using aspects from temporal self-regulation theory. J Food Prot. 2011; 74: 925– 932. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-558 21669069 · DOI
  54. [70]Shapiro MA, Porticella N, Jiang LC, Gravani RB. Predicting intentions to adopt safe home food handling practices. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. Appetite. 2011; 56: 96– 103. 10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.148 21115082 · DOI
  55. [71]Mullan B, Allom V, Sainsbury K, Monds LA. Examining the predictive utility of an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour model in the context of specific individual safe food-handling. Appetite. 2015; 90: 91– 98. 10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.033 25728884 · DOI
  56. [72]Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, et al How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006; 6: 27– 44.

Authors
Young, I., & Waddell, L.
Affiliations
  • Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
  • Public Health Agency of Canada (CA)
Corresponding author
Young, Ian
ORCID
Waddell, Lisa
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2016-12-01
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
e0167695
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0167695
PMC
PMC5132243
OpenAlex
W2559525386
Cited by
112
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Public Health Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
safe food handling, household food safety, food poisoning, consumer behavior, barriers and facilitators, consumer confidence, risk perception, knowledge-behavior gap, social influence, food preferences
MeSH terms
Consumer Product Safety, Food Handling, Foodborne Diseases, Food Preferences, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Qualitative Research, Food Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review