Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41940711›Full record

SynthesisComprehensive reviews in food science and food safety2026

Measuring Food Safety Culture: A Systematic Review of Questionnaire Dimensions and Validation Practices.

Ke Wang, Miranda Mirosa, Yakun Hou, Phil Bremer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ke WangDepartment of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Miranda MirosaDepartment of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Yakun HouDepartment of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Phil BremerDepartment of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-7890-8970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An organization's food safety culture (FSC) is increasingly being recognized as a key factor in its food safety performance. The reliable measurement of FSC is therefore crucial for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of food companies in food safety performance, enabling them to guide continuous improvement. While questionnaires are the most widely used tool for FSC assessment, existing instruments vary considerably in their scope, structure, and methodological rigor, which limits the consistency, comparability, and practical utility of these instruments. This review systematically examines all publicly available FSC questionnaires to consolidate the knowledge about their scope, content, and validation practices. Specifically, the review (1) outlines the characteristics of FSC studies and tracks the evolution of their questionnaires; (2) identifies and clusters the dimensions across instruments, highlighting commonalities and differences of the scope across questionnaires; (3) summarizes the items used within each clustered dimension to illustrate how FSC is operationalized; (4) examines all the validation methods employed; and (5) outlines opportunities for further development and application of FSC questionnaires. This article reveals significant diversity in theoretical frameworks, conceptual scope, and focus areas of detailed items, as well as notable gaps in validation practices. The findings provide a comprehensive overview of existing tools, offer practical guidance for researchers, industry practitioners, and regulators on selecting or developing robust questionnaires, and highlight the need for greater methodological rigor in the future development of FSC questionnaires.

Indexed as

Food SafetyHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41940711
PMCPMC13051759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.