Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023 - 10

Literature search
The research database search strategy was developed in collaboration
with research library team members. The review
team also requested any unpublished needs assessment data
from partners through direct or referred one-on-one requests
and through a NECAFS newsletter. Keyword search terms
were revised based on the primary research question (see
Appendix 2 for full list of revised keywords).
Searching was completed within the AGRICOLA database,
which is produced by the USDA National Agricultural
Library and indexes agricultural literature. Keywords were
entered with phrases in quotations, connected with the
advanced search functions " OR, " " Any field, " and " contains. "
The search was limited to journal articles within the United
States that were written in English. The References Cited
sections of identified articles were examined to find additional
relevant studies. All studies were stored on Mendeley Data
(https://data.mendeley.com/) and an Excel sheet (Microsoft,
Redmond, WA) with search log notes and citations.
Separate tabs were maintained for published and unpublished
data.
Determining eligibility criteria
The review team developed data inclusion and exclusion
criteria based on the primary research question, and the
included data (i) assessed grower needs stemming from
either GAPs and/or the FSMA PSR, (ii) were collected
through a needs assessment, (iii) were published in a
written report in a peer-reviewed journal or by a university
or government agency, and (iv) were specific to small- or
medium-sized growers.
The review team defined " needs assessments " to be any
tool administered to members of the produce safety community
that collected feedback and articulated produce safety
needs (i.e., pre- and posttests, course evaluation, survey, and
needs assessment). This definition was used because the wide
variation in the design of the needs assessments, including
mailed or online surveys, phone interviews, in-person and
on-farm visits, pre- and posttests for educational programs,
and knowledge tests. Increased nuance and complexities
were revealed when using this more broadly defined needs
assessment. In Minnesota, Hamilton et al. (12) found that
revisiting the same respondents from a prior mailed survey
(14) to conduct on-farm interviews with open-ended
questions revealed inaccuracies and misrepresentation when
growers had originally been asked to self-report. Other
studies that included an initial mailed survey (27) were
supplemented rather than invalidated by follow-up in-depth
interviews (28). Lewis Ivey et al. (17) noted the efficacy of
including survey questions about the demographics and current
produce safety practices of respondents and the attitudes
and perceptions surrounding their decision-making processes.
The review team determined that all results that included
any data informed by small- or medium-size growers would
10
Food Protection Trends January/February
be included. Because the studies included a range of audiences
(buyers, consumers, gardeners, food safety experts,
and growers) and farm sizes, the reported data could not be
separated, so the results were included as presented by the
original authors.
Exclusion criteria for rejection of data were (i) collected
before 2005, (ii) unpublished, and (iii) did not include
small- or medium-sized growers. Data collected before
2005 were omitted to ensure timeliness and relevance to the
current issues. Unpublished data were omitted because much
of the data were in raw form, still requiring analysis, and it
was not possible or appropriate to analyze data from other
investigators. Studies presenting data from only large growers
also were omitted.
Data screening, extraction, and analysis
After the search was completed and all studies that met
the inclusion criteria were identified, the studies were
screened for relevance by reading their titles, abstracts, and
introductions. When the study was considered relevant, the
full report was read and compared against the inclusion and
exclusion criteria. All remaining studies were determined
to be relevant and included in the analysis. The eligibility
determination flow chart is shown in Figure 1.
A descriptive analysis method was followed, and all
studies deemed eligible were described, and the results
were synthesized and interpreted. Many elements of the
needs assessments reviewed varied, including study design,
geographic scale (county, state, multistate, or nation),
produce safety topic, and complexity. This semisystematic
literature review integrated research conducted through
different approaches by different researchers describing the
contrasting and complimentary ways the topic of food safety
needs has been studied and revealed relevant and influencing
factors in the literature. An understanding of this complexity
will allow the reader to make informed educational decisions
through contextualized understanding of growers' needs.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The review included 34 published studies that met our
search criteria, and the data from these studies were extracted
and summarized (Table 1). We learned that extensive work
has been done since 2005 to identify the needs of growers
who are working to meet produce safety standards.
The following discussion identifies the key produce safety
needs of small- and medium-sized producers including
knowledge, training, capital, time, and mindset. Although
the studies were primarily focused on these needs, the types
of data collected across the individual needs assessments
provided connectivity and understanding of external (nonproduce
safety) influencing factors such as region, farm size,
farm type, and market. In this section, we present the needs
identified and conclude with the analysis of how these needs
are influenced by external factors.
https://data.mendeley.com/
Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023
