Food Protection Trends - January/February 2022 - 13

TABLE 2. Profile of participants in the intervention study
Characteristics
Age†
Male
Gender§
Female
Nationality§
Marital status§
Educational level§
Work experience
(food industry)§
Designation§
Food handler
training§
Typhoid
vaccination#
Malaysian
Indonesian
Single
Married and others
Primary and below
Secondary and above
Less than 2 yr
3 yr and above
Supervisor and/or owner
Food operator
Yes
No
Yes
No
Chi-square test; #
Treatment group Control group
36 ± 11
7 (23)
24 (77)
14 (45)
17 (55)
10 (32)
21 (68)
5 (16)
26 (84)
17 (55)
14 (45)
7 (23)
24 (77)
24 (77)
7 (23)
27 (87)
4 (13)
36 ± 12
10 (33)
20 (67)
5 (17)
25 (83)
9 (30)
21 (70)
6 (20)
24 (80)
13 (43)
17 (57)
6 (20)
24 (80)
23 (77)
7 (23)
28 (93)
2 (7)
†Age is expressed as mean ± SD; §#other characteristics are shown as number (%).
†Independent t-Test; §
Fisher's exact test; *Significant at P < 0.05.
The knowledge questions for contamination prevention of
RTE food were adapted from previous research (40, 47, 50).
The final instrument for contamination prevention consisted
of 12 items. An example of a question for contamination
prevention was " Using gloves while handling food reduces
the risk of food contamination " (True, False, or Unsure).
Self-efficacy
A previous instrument for measuring self-efficacy (7) was
used, slightly modified to focus on the two selected food
safety behaviors. The instrument consists of a total of three
items to assess the confidence and skills related to performing
the selected food safety behavior. An example of a selfefficacy
question related to hand washing practice was " I
have the skills necessary to perform the 7-step hand-washing
technique " (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed using SPSS software (version
20, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Knowledge scores were the
sum of items answered correctly out of 15 points for hand
washing and 12 points for contamination prevention behavior,
multiplied by 100. The mean score for self-efficacy was based
on a maximum of 7 points. Behavioral compliance scores for
each behavior were calculated by taking the number of times
the behavior was performed, divided by the number of times
the behavior should have been performed, and multiplying
by 100. Paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test
were used for behavioral compliance and self-efficacy scores to
compare the mean for pre- and posttest intervention data. For
the knowledge score, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (using
the pretest score as the covariate for the posttest score) was
used to compare mean posttest score for control and treatment
groups (35).
RESULTS
Profile of participants
A total of 66 food handlers from 10 nationally funded
schools and two different districts in Klang Valley, Malaysia,
were recruited. However, five participants dropped out in
the middle of the study; two due to medical reasons and
three due to busy schedules. In total, 61 participants stayed
in the study until completion of the data collection period.
Participant profiles are shown in Table 2. Overall, the
January/February Food Protection Trends
13
t/χ2
0.020
0.877
5.772
0.036
0.155
0.807
0.061
0.005
-
P-value
0.984
0.349
0.016*
0.849
0.694
0.369
0.806
0.944
0.671
Food Protection Trends - January/February 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - January/February 2022
