ArticlePloS one2025
FOODAlyzer usability: Advances in food safety education.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proliferation of digital technologies offers innovative avenues for public health education. This study evaluates the usability of FOODAlyzer©, a web-based application designed to enhance food safety awareness among Generation Z university students in Peninsular Malaysia. Using a mixed-methods approach, researchers collected data from 419 Gen Z students via online questionnaires. The study comprehensively assessed the app's effectiveness in improving knowledge, attitudes, and risk perception regarding food poisoning prevention. The results demonstrated significant positive outcomes. Majority of respondents (94.8%) acknowledged FOODAlyzer© utility in selecting quality food premises. The app demonstrated strong performance across key usability metrics, with participants reporting high levels of interactivity, accessibility, and ease of learning. Notably, 89.7% of respondents expressed intentions to utilize the app before ordering food, and 90.6% would recommend it to others. While the app demonstrated strong potential, user feedback revealed critical areas for improvement, which were categorized into two main themes: Technical enhancements and food safety education advancements. Key findings highlighted five technical improvement themes. Users called for greater accessibility and inclusivity, including multilingual support, a dedicated mobile app, and features accommodating diverse age groups. Suggestions for interface design focused on improving icon clarity, tooltip implementation, and visual readability. To boost engagement, users recommended an interactive experience with embedded multimedia, peer review systems, and instant feedback mechanisms. Enhancements in functionality, such as a more reliable system and streamlined login process, were also prioritized. Finally, users proposed interconnectedness with external services and government platforms to extend its reach and credibility. Regarding food safety education, three key themes emerge. Users suggested enhancing educational content with clearer criteria to educate both consumers and premise owners. Incorporating reward-based motivation through gamification, quizzes, and promotional incentives was recommended to encourage consistent use. Finally, users emphasized the need for clearer evaluation tools, advocating for simplified question formats, intuitive scales and reduced questionnaire length to minimize user fatigue and improve accuracy. This research provides a user-centered roadmap for developing effective digital public health tools. By addressing these identified limitations and incorporating stakeholder feedback, FOODAlyzer© can be optimized to better serve as a model for future digital interventions aimed at improving food safety practices among young adults and the broader community.
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.