Vendor Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Food Safety in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

Evidence on foodborne disease (FBD) in low and middle income countries (LMICs) is still limited, but important studies in recent years have broadened our understanding. These suggest that developing country consumers are concerned about FBD; that most of the known burden of FBD disease comes from biological hazards; and, that most FBD is the result of consumption of fresh, perishable foods sold in informal markets. FBD is likely to increase in LMICs as the result of massive increases in the consumption of risky foods (livestock and fish products and produce) and lengthening and broadening value chains. Although intensification of agricultural production is a strong trend, so far agro-industrial production and modern retail have not demonstrated clear advantages in food safety and disease control. There is limited evidence on effective, sustainable and scalable interventions to improve food safety in domestic markets. Training farmers on input use and good practices often benefits those farmers trained, but has not been scalable or sustainable, except where good practices are linked to eligibility for export. Training informal value chain actors who receive business benefits from being trained has been more successful. New technologies, growing public concern and increased emphasis on food system governance can also improve food safety.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major public health threat, and inappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animal production can contribute to the global burden of AMR in humans. This study was conducted to understand knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of smallholder livestock owners regarding antimicrobial use, residue, and resistance in three agro-ecological zones and production systems in Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study based on structured interviews was conducted. Twenty-one items were used to assess farmers' KAP. Item response theory (IRT) model and Cronbach's alpha were used to assess the KAP measurement scales. Inferential analyses were used to compare the differences in the practices in terms of the farm and socio-economic characteristics. There was a difference in the type of antimicrobials reported use between agro-ecological zones and production systems. Pastoralists most commonly used antibiotics (86.7%) followed by anthelminthics (70.8%). Overall, tetracyclines (36.4%), aminoglycosides (31.3%), and trimethoprim-sulfonamides (6.2%) were the most frequently used classes of antibiotics across the study sites. Human preparation antibiotics (tetracyclines) were also being used for veterinary purposes by 18.5% of pastoralist households. About 81.6% of livestock owners surveyed reported to have access to veterinary drugs although access varied between agro-ecological zones and production system. About 72.3% of pastoralists administered antibiotics by not following through the full treatment course. Moreover, 70% of respondents were not aware of the recommended withdrawal periods of milk and meat after antibiotic treatment. It was noticed that around 80 and 70% of respondents had a tendency to give doses higher or lower than recommended of antimicrobials, respectively. The study confirms the need for interventions to increase knowledge among smallholder farmers to improve the way antimicrobials in general and antibiotics in particular are used in these settings. In addition, professional involvement, supervision, and guidance can also lead to more efficient antimicrobial use by smallholder livestock owners. The study also highlights the need for research into the development of usable tools that measure antibiotic knowledge and attitudes.