4.7 Article

Use of Focus Groups to Identify Food Safety Risks for Older Adults in the U.S.

Journal

FOODS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11010037

Keywords

older adults; food safety; focus groups; consumer education; Health Belief Model; listeria; poultry; behavioral theory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Older adults are vulnerable to foodborne illness and many do not follow safe food handling guidelines. They generally do not perceive themselves as being susceptible to foodborne illness. The Health Belief Model could be expanded to include perceived risk of food contamination.
Older adults are vulnerable to foodborne illness; however, many do not follow safe food handling guidelines that would reduce their risk of infection. Virtual focus groups were used to explore older adults' food handling and consumption practices and to understand how to apply the Health Belief Model for food safety research with respect to older adults. Thirty-nine adults between the ages of 56 and 80 participated in the study. Most participants reported eating poultry and eggs, whereas few reported eating precut fruit or raw sprouts. The majority were not using a cooking thermometer for all types of poultry and did report washing raw poultry. Participants were generally resistant to the idea of heating deli meats. Most focus group participants did not perceive themselves as being personally susceptible to foodborne illness. They did, however, express food safety concerns related to specific foods, such as melons and bagged salads, and they reported taking precautions to limit health risks from these foods. Regarding the Health Belief Model, our results indicate that the construct of perceived susceptibility could be expanded to include perceived risk, which refers to an individual's belief about the likelihood that a food might be contaminated with a foodborne pathogen. These results should be confirmed among a nationally representative sample of older adults.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available