ArticleTropical medicine and health2026
User experiences with food storage in a meatsafe (mesh-covered food storage cabinet) in an informal settlement in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Article in Tropical medicine and health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFood hygiene is a critical but underemphasized link in fecal-oral disease transmission in dense informal settlements. A mesh-walled meatsafe, designed to exclude insects, animals, and young children while allowing ventilation, was distributed in a randomized controlled trial in Korail, Dhaka. Despite near-universal use (87.7-99.2% of intervention households storing cooked food across five spot-check rounds), the trial detected no reductions in food contamination or child diarrhoea. This qualitative substudy investigated what technological, psychosocial, and contextual factors limited the meatsafe's protective potential despite high observed use.
methodsGuided by the Integrated Behavioral Model for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (IBM-WASH), we conducted 16 in-depth interviews with primary caregivers, purposively sampled to capture variation in meatsafe condition, maintenance, and food contamination profiles, and triangulated findings against spot-check records. Transcripts were thematically coded across IBM-WASH domains.
resultsBarriers preventing correct device use (fidelity barriers) included a steam-spoilage belief leading caregivers to cool food uncovered before meatsafe placement, rexine liner warping reinforcing cooling delays, and cumulative hardware friction from frame instability, latch weakness, and size constraints. Barriers that operated outside the scope of the intervention (beyond-fidelity barriers) included energy scarcity enforcing batch cooking with extended storage, monsoon flooding contaminating cooking spaces, seasonal displacement disrupting routines, and contested childcare authority limiting maternal protective behavior. The uncovered cooling period was invisible to spot-check monitoring yet represented the highest-risk contamination window.
conclusionsNear-universal meatsafe use without contamination reductions is explained by a behavioral gap invisible to spot-check monitoring: households stored food only after an uncovered cooling period. The meatsafe addressed only one F-diagram pathway; other fecal-oral routes remained uncontrolled. Sustainable reduction of foodborne enteric disease requires co-designed hardware addressing the full causal pathway, behavior change communication directly confronting the steam-spoilage belief, and concurrent structural investment in energy access, drainage, and pest control.
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.