Review of FSA Social Science
Review of FSA Social Science: Annex 2E Assessment of the Kitchen Life 2: Literature Review
Review of FSA Social Science report Annex 2e, an assessment of research outputs using GSR code and the FSA QAT assessing research reports checklist.
Outputs: Kitchen Life 2: Literature Review of Food Safety & Hygiene Behaviours in Domestic & Commercial Kitchens.
Authors: Weller, J., Kaptan, G, Bhandal, R., & Battachery, D., Leeds University Business School and Basis Social
Date: May 2022
Assessment of the Kitchen Life 2: Literature Review using GSR Code
Rigorous and impartial
| Rigorous and impartial | Rating | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Based on sound methodology and established scientific principles | Medium | This literature review falls short of a systematic review in that it uses a limited search string and only two databases (Scopus and Web of Science). It also does not appear to use double screening or double data extraction. In fairness, this output is presented as a literature review and not a systematic review, but this is less that a sound methodology or established scientific practice nowadays. |
| Quality assured | Medium | This review was quality assured internally by the FSA social research team and by members of the Social Science Advisory Board. It was not reviewed by wholly external peer reviewers using the usual standards of practice. |
| Based on best design, given constraints | Low | Given that this review had over eight months to be completed the best design would have been a narrative systematic review following Cochrane/Campbell methodological procedures and guidelines. Alternatively, it could have used Rapid Evidence Assessment methodology which would have enhanced its search and analytical approach. |
| Conclusions are clearly and adequately supported by data | Medium | This review does not have a ‘Conclusions’ section, though the section on ‘Recommendations’ summarises the key findings and ‘take home’ messages clearly and well. These are supported by the data collected, but given the somewhat narrow search procedures there may be some risk of bias in what is presented. |
Relevant
| Relevant | Rating | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Anticipates future policy issues as well as addressing current ones | High | This review focuses on key behaviours relating to food safety in domestic and business kitchens within the context of the FSA’s policy response to the COVID pandemic. Its ‘key recommendations’ about what people need to know and do have considerable implications for current and future policy issues. |
| Answers clear and researchable questions | High | This review seeks “to identify the key behaviours relating to food safety that occur in domestic and business kitchens, as well as the factors that may reduce the likelihood to enact recommended food safety & hygiene behaviours”. This would appear to be its main research question and it is researchable. |
| Contributes to all stages of the policy and delivery process | Medium | This review has implications for the further development and implementation of the FSA’s policies on food hygiene. To this extent it does contribute to the policy process. However, given its limitations with searching for appropriate evidence its findings should be used with some degree of caution. |
| Delivers solutions that are viable, actionable and represent value for money | Medium | This review identifies a number of activities in domestic and business kitchens that may require action to improve food hygiene and ensure healthier eating. It does not “deliver solutions”, nor is this its purpose or role. The latter Is surely the responsibility of policy makers at the FSA and local authority inspectors. |
Accessible
| Accessible | Rating | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Published | High | This literature review was published by the FSA in October 2021. |
| Data made available where possible | Low | This review does not include a ‘flow diagram’ of how the initial search yields were reduced to the studies that were finally included. There is no list of excluded studies with the reasons for their exclusion. The studies included in the review are well documented as part of the narrative of the report. There is no attempt to rate the included studies in terms of their strength of evidence. |
| Clear and concise | High | This research output is presented clearly and reasonable concisely. It is also easy to read. |
| Related to existing work in field | High | The content of this report is by definition related to existing research and evaluation in the field, including meta-analyses. |
Legal and ethical
| Legal and ethical | Rating | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Complies with relevant legislation | High | This report seems to comply with relevant legislation that outlines the FSA's regulatory role, and its law enforcement function on food crimes and food hygiene. |
| Complies with GSR ethical guidelines | High | This survey has been undertaken in compliance with the GSR ethical guidelines. |
FSA QAT Assessing Research Reports Checklist
Kitchen Life 2: Literature Review of Food Safety and Hygiene Behaviours Checklist 2 – Assessing research reports
The FSA’s Quality Assessment Toolkit does not include a checklist for assessing the quality of literature reviews. It does provide links to the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist via the Equator Network. The ‘issues for consideration’ are based on the PRISMA guidelines.