ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Information Source-Message Effect on Consumers' Intentions to Adhere to Food Safety Practices When Handling and Preparing Raw Chicken.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Ideal food safety communication provides timely evidence-based information for consumers to protect themselves from foodborne illnesses. We investigated if information sources (experts providing factual information vs. social media influencers (SMIs) providing misinformation), cognitive, affective, and sociodemographic factors influenced participants' intentions to adhere to food safety practices for raw chicken, a high-risk food. In a quasi-experimental, cross-sectional survey, 727 U.S. adults watched videos about raw chicken food safety from an expert, SMI, or a control. Structural model A explained 56.6% of the variance in intentions. Compared to the control, expert and SMI sources had direct, negative effects on intentions. Experts were associated with greater perceived threat for consuming raw chicken compared to SMI and control videos. Perceived threat and efficacy had significant indirect effects on intentions. Structural model B explained 47.6% of the variance in intentions. Knowledge, trust in science, trust in information source, counterarguing, and sociodemographic factors were insignificant moderators. Food safety communicators should provide clear information about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked chicken and actionable guidance for consumers to avoid foodborne illnesses. Audience segmentation analysis may be an important next step to identify consumer groups and tailor food safety messages to specific consumer needs.
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.