Trial reportCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2017
Restaurant inspection frequency: The RestoFreq Study.
Trial report in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Factors affecting effectiveness of food control inspections in food production establishments in Finland.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFoodborne illness is an important contributor to morbidity and health system costs in Canada. Using number of critical hazards as a proxy for food safety, we sought to better understand how to improve food safety in restaurants. We compared the current standard of annual inspections to twice-yearly inspections among restaurants "at risk" for food safety infractions. These were restaurants that had three or more elevated-risk inspection ratings in the preceding 36 months.
methodsWe conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial between November 2012 and October 2014. The intervention was twice-yearly routine restaurant inspection compared to standard once-yearly routine inspection. Included were all restaurants within Saskatoon Health Region that were assessed as "at risk", with 73 restaurants in the intervention arm and 78 in the control arm. Independent sample t-tests were conducted between groups to compare: i) average number of critical hazards per inspection; and ii) proportion of inspections resulting in a rating indicating an elevated hazard.
resultsOver time we noted statistically significant improvements across both study arms, in number of both critical food safety hazards (decreased by 61%) and elevated-risk inspection ratings (decreased by 45%) (p < 0.0001). We observed no significant differences between the two groups pre- or post-intervention.
conclusionResults suggest increasing the number of annual routine inspections in high-risk restaurants was not associated with a significant difference in measures of compliance with food safety regulations. Findings of this study do not provide evidence supporting increased frequency of restaurant inspection from annually to twice annually.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.