Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of street food vendors on food safety in selected areas of Bangladesh

Abstract

This study determined the food-safety situation of street food by analyzing the KAP of street food vendors (SFVs). A quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among the 266 SFVs through structured questionnaire from October to December, 2020. Majority of the SFVs were male (92.86%), age between 35 to 44 years (34.21%), married (83.83%), had primary education (46.99%), experience of 5–9 years (32.71%), and monthly income was <10000 BDT (35.71%). Additionally, utmost had no any training on food-safety (93.61%), and food preparation-preservation (89.47%). The knowledge and practice score of “≥50 to <75” was for highest proportion of SFVs amounting 57.89% and 47.7% respectively. And the attitudes score “≥67 to <83” was recorded for the highest number of SFVs (70.3%). Moreover, the mean KAP score was 71.94 ± 10.21, 73.89 ± 7.37 and 55.37 ± 15.08 respectively. However, the knowledge score had a moderate-strength of positive correlation with attitudes score (r = 0.342, p < 0.01) and practice score (r = 0.389, p < 0.01); having the regression-equation, y = 0.25∗x + 56.12 and y = 0.57∗x + 14.01 respectively. Besides, the similar correlation was also observed between attitudes and practice score (r = 0.328, p < 0.01) with the regression, y = 0.67∗x + 5.81. In this regard, a regular basis training on basics of food-safety and cotemporary education on food-safety at initial stage of education could be imposed to improve the KAP on food-safety.

Food-hygiene; Food-safety; Knowledge; Attitude; Practice; Street food vendors.

1. Introduction

A wide variety of ready-to-eat (RTE) foods when prepared and sold by the vendors on the streets or any public places, are commonly known as “Street food” [1]. Approximately 2.5 billion people, mostly the low-income people widely consumed the street foods everyday due to cheap and easily available, which supports their livelihood [2]. Consequently, it is an usual complication that the SFVs suffer from different foodborne diseases, most commonly, the food poisoning, diarrhea, typhoid fever and cholera [3]. Basically, the unhygienic practices during food preparation and vending facilitate the environment that the pathogenic microorganisms can be speedily increased in number along with their growth and transmission, resulting the food borne illness [4]. Moreover, a large scale of food preparation has the higher chance of contamination by food handlers. Because less attention to hygiene permits the pathogenic microorganism to contaminate the foods [5, 6]. Usually, the pathogenic microorganism, such as Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp. and so forth are present in street foods [7]. Moreover, street food safety has become a most important food safety concern as a result of poor food hygiene and management conditions [8]. Therefore, three important factors, knowledge and attitudes of street food vendors (SFVs) and hygiene practices have an essential role on establishing the safety and hygiene in food preparation and vending on the street [9]. In many low-income countries, the regressive, jobless urban or rural population are having an employment opportunity based on this street food vending [10], because of low investment in this business. However, majority of the SFVs are relatively unschooled and often unaware, and have poor operative regulatory or supervisory control [11].

In Bangladesh, many big cities as well as small towns and rural areas are very much familiar with street food and popular to the locals and tourists. Although, previous research has been evaluated on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of SFVs in some selected area of Bangladesh [12, 13, 14]. But the knowledge levels of SFVs are dissimilar on food safety, and every so often, an acceptable knowledge level does not reflect into good hygienic practices specially when processing and vending foodstuffs [15]. On the other hand, the first-ever COVID-19 confirmed case was reported on 8 March 2020 in Bangladesh. Since then, there has been a change in people's daily lives due to executing of several strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic, some of them concerning to the social distancing, hand washing, lockdown measures and etc. [16]. In this COVID-19 pandemic situation, there has been also changes in the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of SFVs to run their business.

To the best of our knowledge, no studies have been performed on the KAP of SFVs during this COVID-19 pandemic situation in Bangladesh. Particularly, many people are mostly depending on the street food in the study area due to the development of industries. So, food safety is an important concern for SFVs in the growingly industrial area of Bangladesh. Additionally, an update study is required on food safety, especially during the pandemic situation to provide an adequate wholesome food basically to the busy employed human beings which is essential for their existence.

Hence, this study was designed to ascertain the food safety situation of street food through understanding of the KAP score of SFVs.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ethical consideration

The ethics of this study was in accordance to research ethics followed by the Department of Microbiology and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University. The ethical consent number was BSMRAU/FVMAS/MPH/20 (Ethical Approval)/2020/01. Particularly, informed consent and verbal agreement was also sought from the all participants (street food vendors) and, their participation was voluntary and willingly.

2.2. Study area and sample size

A quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among the street food vendors (SFVs) in Bangladesh. In this research, the study locations were considered in different areas of 10 districts of the country located between 24°34′ to 23°81′ north latitude and 89°40′ to 90°98′ east longitude. The study location was mostly central area of Bangladesh including capital district and others are nearer. Day by day many industries are growing in this area as well as the density of population is increasing. The spatial location of the study areas where data was collected shown in Figure 1. The ArcGIS-ArcMap version 10.8 (ESRI, USA) software was used to prepare the study map. The data were collected through a structured questionnaire for SFVs during the period of October to December, 2020. According to the formula of the other author [17], the sample size in the study area was determined (eq. (1)).

$$\mathit{n}=\frac{{\mathit{z}}^2\mathit{P}\left(1\mathrm{-}\mathit{P}\right)}{{\mathit{d}}^2};\mathit{n}=\frac{{\left(1.96\right)}^2\mathrm{\times }0.22\left(1\mathrm{-}\mathrm{0}\mathrm{.}\mathrm{22}\right)}{{\left(0.05\right)}^2};\mathit{n}=263.68\cong 264$$ (1)

where n = sample size, Z = 1.96 (95% confidence level), P = expected prevalence or proportion (in proportion of one; 22.38%, P = 0.22), and d = precision (in proportion of one; whereas P = 0.22, therefore d = 0.05).

Figure 1.

Spatial location of the study population (street food vendors) in different area of Bangladesh.

The expected proportion of KAP score of SFVs was 22.38%, obtained through a pilot study. The calculated sample size was 264 as respondent. And finally, a total of 266 street food vendors (SFVs) data especially who vended in the market area, were considered as sample size in this study. The multiple random sampling techniques were applied to select the study participants. The only unwillingness to contribute was the exclusion criteria.

2.3. Questionnaire

A structured questionnaire was used to assess the food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of street food vendors, were adapted from similar past studies, stating on the knowledge on food safety and attitudes and safe food handling practices of SFVs [1, 12, 18]. The questions were translated from English to the mother tongue “Bengali” and the responses were recorded into the English language. Translation of the questionnaire was directed by a bilingualist, which was also checked by an independent research assistant.

3. Measures

The structured questionnaire was comprised with four sections. First, the socio-demographic section which comprised the variable of food handlers' gender, age, marital status, educational status, experience on vending, monthly income, training on food safety and hygiene (TFSH), and training on food preparation and preservation (TFPP). Second, the knowledge section of the questionnaire which intended to assess the SFVs on their food safety knowledge of personal hygiene, cross contamination, microorganisms, food-borne diseases, packaging and so forth. This section included 21 close-ended questions with each with three possible answers; “yes”, “no” and “don't know” where the allocated point for these three responses were 2, 1 and 0 respectively. The possible score range for knowledge section was 0–42 points. Then the scores were converted to 100 points. Third, the attitudes section where the questions pertaining to determine the impression of SFVs towards the food safety. Here, attitudes were used to denote “a complex mental state involving beliefs, feelings, values and dispositions to act in certain ways” [19]. In this section included 18 questions having 7 possible answers. A six-point rating scale (Strongly agree = 6; Moderately agree = 5; Partially agree = 4; Partially disagree = 3; Moderately disagree = 2; Strongly Disagree = 1 and Neutral = 0) was used to evaluate the SFVs attitudes. The score range was between 0 to 108 and converted to 100 points. Lastly, in the section four, which comprised with 21 questions regarding the food hygiene practices by SFVs. Among the 21 questions, the first 10 were negatively practiced on food hygiene and the rest of the questions were positively. In each question had the possible three answer: “Always”, “Often” and “Never”. Three points rating scale was used for respondents to rate the level of impact of each practice. The questions which indicating the negatively practice on food safety, the point 0, 1 and 2 was awarded for the possible response of “Always”, “Often” and “Never” respectively. On the other hand, the questions of positively practice on food hygiene, the point 2, 1 and 0 was awarded for the possible response of “Always”, “Often” and “Never” respectively. The possible score range for practices section was 0–42 points. After that the scores were converted to 100 points. In case of knowledge and practices score of SFVs, scores “<50%”, “50%–75%” and “>75” by an individual respondent was considered as having “Low”, “Medium” and “Acceptable” level of knowledge and practices on food hygiene respectively [12]. On the other hand, in case of attitudes section, the SFVs having the score of “< 67”, “67%–83%” and “>83%” indicated that “Low”, “Medium” and “Acceptable” level of attitudes respectively. This scale was considered, because the highest score (%) for the response of “Partially Agree” and “Moderately Agree” to all attitude's questions was about 67% and 83% respectively. The score (%), for the agreement (“Partially Agree” + “Moderately Agree”) was considered as “Medium” level of attitudes and for the agreement (“Strongly agree”) was considered as “Acceptable” level of attitudes.

3.1. Validity and reliability of questionnaire

Prior to conduct the final study, a pilot study was performed among a randomly-selected small group of SFVs (n = 25) to determine the fitness of the questionnaire. The internal consistency reliability for the SFVs knowledge, attitudes and practices is judged based on the average inter-item correlation (AIC) analysis and calculating Cronbach's alpha. The AIC was 0.14 (−0.54 to 0.74), 0.38 (−0.13 to 0.74) and 0.12 (−0.504 to 0.65) for knowledge, attitudes and practices sections. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.762, 0.914 and 0.724 for knowledge, attitudes and practices sections of the questionnaire, indicating acceptable reliability [20]. The results of the piloted survey were not comprised in this final study.

3.2. Statistical analysis

The data achieved from the survey were inputted and arranged accordingly into a spread sheet of Microsoft Excel-2019 and subsequently transferred into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 for further analysis. Descriptive statistics was applied to calculate the frequencies, percentages, mean, standard deviation, KAP scores, maximum and minimum values for each socio-demographic variable of the respondent's and presented in tables. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to test the association between categorical variable. Particularly, when more than 20% cells had expected count less than 5, the p value of fisher exact tests was accounted. Additionally, Independent samples t-testing was conducted to compare the mean of KAP score of two community variables such as gender, TFSH and TFPP. On the other hand, the one-way ANOVA was considered, followed by Tukey's test, to compare the mean of KAP scores for demographic variable having more than two category level such as age, marital and educational status, experience and monthly income. Finally, the Pearson correlation test (r) was performed to ascertain the strength of the correlations within the KAP scores and also Spearman's rank correlation between the KAP scores and demographic variables. The strength of the correlations was classified as followed by another research [18]. However, before performing the statistical test, all certain assumption for specific test was performed and none of them violated the statement. The results with p-values of less than 0.05 were counted statistically significant.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic characteristics of food vendors

The demographic characteristics of SFVs is presented in Table 1 which shows that all the variables having different levels had the statistically significant variation. Among the 266 vendors, the majority proportion were male (92.86%), age between 35 to 44 years (34.21%), married (83.83%), had the primary level of education (46.99%), had the experience of 5–9 years (32.71%), and their (35.71%) monthly family income was <10000 Taka. Additionally, most of them (93.61%) had no any training on food safety and hygiene, and also had no any training on food preparation and preservation (89.47%). Particularly, the variable gender and training on food safety-security had the higher variation indicated by the effect size of 0.734 and 0.761 respectively.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of food vendors.

Categorical		Response		χ2 Value	Effect Size
Variable	Level	N = 266	%
Gender of Vendors	Female	19.00	7.14	195.43∗∗	0.734
	Male	247.00	92.86
Age (Years)	<18	4.00	1.50	148.14∗∗	0.111
	18 to 25	26.00	9.77
	26 to 34	79.00	29.70
	35 to 44	91.00	34.21
	45 to 54	55.00	20.68
	55 and above	11.00	4.14
Marital Status	Married	223.00	83.83	312.19∗∗	0.588
	Unmarried	39.00	14.66
	Divorced	4.00	1.50
Education	Illiterate	61.00	22.93	176.56∗∗	0.165
	Primary	125.00	46.99
	SSC	63.00	23.68
	HSC	15.00	5.64
	Bachelor	2.00	0.75
Experience (Years)	<5	81.00	30.45	65.20∗∗	0.061
	5–9	87.00	32.71
	10–14	45.00	16.92
	15–19	21.00	7.89
	≥20	32.00	12.03
Monthly Income (BDT)	<10000	26.00	9.77	39.23∗∗	0.049
	<10 K	95.00	35.71
	10 K to <20 K	66.00	24.81
	20 K to <30 K	79.00	29.70
TFS	No	249.00	93.61	202.35∗∗	0.761
	Yes	17.00	6.39
TFPP	No	238.00	89.47	165.79∗∗	0.623
	Yes	28.00	10.53

^∗∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), χ² = Chi square value, N=Frequencies, % = Percentages, BDT = Bangladeshi Taka, K= Thousand, TFSH = Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP = Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

4.2. Food safety knowledge of street food vendors (SFVs)

As is presented in Table 2, the knowledge question on food safety and hygiene, where all the questions had the significant (p < 0.01) variation on the basis of the possible response. The majority of SFVs in this study had the knowledge on maintaining the personal hygiene (95.11%), washing hands regularly before and after the work (91.35%). On the other hand, the majority portion did not response to the question regarding to Hepatitis A virus is a food borne pathogens (81.95%), microbes in the skin/nose/mouth of SFVs (76.69%) and lastly transmission of typhoid fever by contaminated food (65.79%). SFVs did not response to the question indicating that they had no knowledge on such statements. A good number of vendors knew that the dirt can contaminate the food (84.59%), so covering of food can improve the hygiene (88.35%). Additionally, majority portion of SFVs had the knowledge that the proper cleaning and sanitization of utensils (82.71%) especially with detergent eliminate the contamination (80.08%) because pathogenic microorganism can transmit through food (84.59%). Unexpectedly, about one-third of the vendors only knew that exchanging of money by hand is a source of contamination. Interestingly, 78.20% of SFVs had idea that washing of hands with only water can't clean enough and 73.68% of SFVs had idea that re-selling of leftover food is not safe respectively.

Table 2.

Food safety knowledge responses of street food vendors.

Sl.N.	Statements	Response N (%)			χ2 value	Effect Size
		Yes	No	Don't response
1.	Pathogenic microorganism can transmit through contaminated food.	225 (84.59)	1 (0.38)	40 (15.04)	323.02∗∗	0.61
2.	Maintaining personal hygiene is essential for food producers and handlers.	253 (95.11)	1 (0.38)	12 (4.51)	457.54∗∗	0.86
3.	Washing hands regularly before and after the work is a part of personal hygiene	243 (91.35)	10 (3.76)	13 (4.89)	403.00∗∗	0.76
4.	Use of apron, mask, gloves, and caps during food selling is the part of personal hygiene	99 (37.22)	33 (12.41)	134 (50.38)	59.33∗∗	0.11
5.	Washing with only water can't clean the hands enough.	208 (78.20)	23 (8.65)	35 (13.16)	241.72∗∗	0.45
6.	Workers should avoid touching their hair and cloth after washing hands	117 (43.98)	26 (9.77)	123 (46.24)	66.64∗∗	0.13
7.	Washing utensils with detergent leaves them free of contamination.	213 (80.08)	11 (4.14)	42 (15.79)	266.94∗∗	0.50
8.	Proper cleaning and sanitization of utensils decrease the risk of food contamination.	220 (82.71)	7 (2.63)	39 (14.66)	297.57∗∗	0.56
9.	Covering food at all times improves the safety of food.	235 (88.35)	8 (3.01)	23 (8.65)	363.53∗∗	0.68
10.	Dirt of street can seriously contaminate the open food	225 (84.59)	12 (4.51)	29 (10.90)	316.07∗∗	0.59
11.	Exchanging of money by hand is a source of contamination	86 (32.33)	31 (11.65)	149 (56.02)	78.64∗∗	0.15
12.	Use of same utensil for distribution of food may increase the contamination.	81 (30.45)	40 (15.04)	145 (54.51)	63.17∗∗	0.12
13.	Hepatitis A virus is a food borne pathogens	32 (12.03)	16 (6.02)	218 (81.95)	284.42∗∗	0.54
14.	Jaundice can be caused due to eating of contaminated food	107 (40.23)	14 (5.26)	145 (54.51)	102.46∗∗	0.19
15.	Typhoid fever can be transmitted by contaminated food	77 (28.95)	14 (5.26)	175 (65.79)	148.47∗∗	0.28
16.	Bloody diarrhea can be caused by the ingestion of contaminated food	137 (51.50)	9 (3.38)	120 (45.11)	109.00∗∗	0.21
17.	Microbes are commonly present in the skin, nose and mouth of healthy handlers	41 (15.41)	21 (7.89)	204 (76.69)	227.29∗∗	0.43
18.	Eating and drinking in the work place increase the risk of food contamination	60 (22.56)	72 (27.07)	134 (50.38)	35.58∗∗	0.07
19.	Re-selling and use of leftover food from the previous day is not safe.	196 (73.68)	49 (18.42)	21 (7.89)	199.32∗∗	0.38
20.	Food prepared in advance reduces the risk of food contamination.	62 (23.31)	30 (11.28)	174 (65.41)	128.96∗∗	0.24
21.	Food can be contaminated by reheating of cooked foods.	25 (9.40)	63 (23.68)	178 (66.92)	143.15∗∗	0.27

^∗∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), ∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.05), χ² = Chi square value, N=Frequencies, % = Percentages.

Table 3. Shows the food safety knowledge score of SFVs. Most of the SFVs (57.89%) had the medium knowledge on food safety as they scored from ≥50 to <75 where only 4.51% had low level of knowledge on food safety. The average score on food safety knowledge was 71.94 ± 10.21 where the minimum and maximum score was 42.86 and 92.86 respectively. In this study, all the categorical level of demographic variables had no significant influence on the food safety knowledge level. Additionally, the mean knowledge score had no significant differences between the levels of different demographic variables. However, the SFVs of <18 years aged (50%) and who had the bachelor level of education (50%) achieved the highest knowledge score ≥75.

Table 3.

Impression of socio-demographic variable on the food safety knowledge of street food vendors.

Categorical		Number of Respondents (%)			p value chi	Knowledge Score
Variable	Level	Low (<50)	Medium (50–75)	Acceptable (>75)		Mean ± SD	p value	Range
Gender of Vendors	Female	1 (5.3)	13 (68.4)	5 (26.3)	0.574Pr	69.55 ± 9.99	0.292‡	47.62–83.33
	Male	11 (4.5)	141 (57.1)	95 (38.5)		72.12 ± 10.22		42.86–92.86
Age (Years)	<18	0 (0.0)	2 (50.0)	2 (50.0)	0.976f	69.64a ± 13.10	0.999¥	57.14–80.95
	18 to 25	1 (3.8)	18 (69.2)	7 (26.9)		72.07a ± 9.15		47.62–88.10
	26 to 34	5 (6.3)	43 (54.4)	31 (39.2)		71.85a ± 10.91		42.86–92.86
	35 to 44	4 (4.4)	52 (57.1)	35 (38.5)		72.06a ± 9.53		47.62–90.48
	45 to 54	2 (3.6)	33 (60.0)	20 (36.4)		71.99a ± 11.13		47.62–92.86
	55 and above	0 (0.0)	6 (54.5)	5 (45.5)		71.86a ± 9.21		54.76–83.33
Marital Status	Married	9 (4.0)	127 (57.0)	87 (39.0)	0.360f	72.18a ± 10.05	0.538¥	42.86–92.86
	Unmarried	3 (7.7)	23 (59.0)	13 (33.3)		71.06a ± 11.45		47.62–92.86
	Divorced	0 (0.0)	4 (100.0)	0 (0.0)		67.26a ± 4.91		61.90–71.43
Education	Illiterate	4 (6.6)	38 (62.3)	19 (31.1)	0.577f	70.73a ± 10.27	0.418¥	47.62–90.48
	Primary	6 (4.8)	70 (56.0)	49 (39.2)		71.56a ± 10.27		47.62–90.48
	SSC	2 (3.2)	33 (52.4)	28 (44.4)		73.17a ± 10.13		42.86–92.86
	HSC	0 (0.0)	12 (80.0)	3 (20.0)		73.65a ± 9.07		54.76–90.48
	Bachelor	0 (0.0)	1 (50.0)	1 (50.0)		80.96a ± 16.84		69.05–92.86
Experience (Years)	<5	5 (6.2)	49 (60.5)	27 (33.3)	0.724f	70.90a ± 10.05	0.103¥	47.62–92.86
	5–9	3 (3.4)	45 (51.7)	39 (44.8)		74.08a ± 9.65		47.62–92.86
	10–14	1 (2.2)	26 (57.8)	18 (40.0)		72.38a ± 9.04		47.62–90.48
	15–19	1 (4.8)	13 (61.9)	7 (33.3)		70.41a ± 11.33		47.62–88.10
	≥20	2 (6.3)	21 (65.6)	9 (28.1)		69.12a ± 12.13		42.86–92.86
Monthly Income (BDT)	<10 K	2 (7.7)	18 (69.2)	6 (23.1)	0.087f	69.05b ± 9.38	0.001¥	47.62–83.33
	10 K to <20 K	7 (7.4)	55 (57.9)	33 (34.7)		69.25b ± 10.89		42.86–88.10
	20 K to <30 K	0 (0.0)	41 (62.1)	25 (37.9)		73.81a ± 8.93		54.76–92.86
	≥30 K	3 (3.8)	40 (50.6)	36 (45.6)		74.56a ± 9.75		47.62–92.86
TFSH	No	12 (4.8)	143 (57.4)	94 (37.8)	0.609Pr	71.84 ± 10.37	0.546‡	42.86–92.86
	Yes	0 (0.0)	11 (64.7)	6 (35.3)		73.39 ± 7.54		54.76–88.10
TFPP	No	12 (5.0)	138 (58.0)	88 (37.0)	0.439Pr	71.66 ± 10.41	0.193‡	42.86–92.86
	Yes	0 (0.0)	16 (57.1)	12 (42.9)		74.32 ± 8.08		54.76–90.48
Total		12 (4.51)	154 (57.89)	100 (37.59)		71.94 ± 10.21		42.86–92.86

^abc:- Column values with same letters do not differ significantly, f = Fisher exact tests, P_r = Pearson's Chi-square test, ‡ = Independent sample T test, ¥ = One way ANOVA, p = Probability value, χ² = Chi square value, p < 0.05 = 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 = 1% level of significance, N=Frequencies, % = Percentages, BDT = Bangladeshi Taka, K= Thousand, TFSH = Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP = Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

4.3. Food safety attitudes of street food vendors (SFVs)

As is presented in Table 4, the attitudes of street food vendors where all the statements differ in terms of their response category. The effect of response in the all-attitudes statements were not high, indicated by the effect size less than 0.8 for all attitude's statements. Among the response of “strongly agree”, the highest proportion of SFVs were 43.61% for the statement regarding that the food should be in covering and providing the safe food is an important part of SFVs job responsibility. Particularly, the highest proportion of SFVs (84.21%) were partially agreed with the foodborne illnesses having the economic effects on the society. Additionally, the SFVs of 77.07% were also partially agree with the proper boiling temperature should maintain and SFVs should not touch the money during food producing or distribution. But among all the statement responding to strongly disagree, the highest was 0.75% regarding that SFVs should not touch the money during food producing or distribution. In the response of partially disagree, the highest proportion of SFVs were 25.56% responded that the uses of paper/polythene packs for food packaging are not safe. Surprisingly, very few portions of SFVs were strongly disagreed with the different food safety attitude's statements. The highest among the all-attitudes statement of neutral response, 0.75% SFVs was for the statement using gloves, mask, cap and apron to reduce the risk of foodborne illness.

Table 4.

Food safety attitudes responses of street food vendors.

Sl	Statements	Response N (%)							χ2 Value	Effect Size
		SA	MA	PA	PD	MD	SD	NL
1.	Training on Food hygiene for workers is essential to reduce the foodborne illness	46 (17.29)	42 (15.79)	164 (61.65)	10 (3.76)	2 (0.75)	2 (0.75)	0 (0)	430.63∗∗	0.27
2.	Personal hygiene is important to prevent foodborne illness	75 (28.20)	26 (9.77)	165 (62.03)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0)	112.11∗∗	0.07
3.	Providing the safe food is an important part of job responsibility.	116 (43.61)	34 (12.78)	115 (43.23)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.38)	0 (0.00)	0 (0)	152.62∗∗	0.10
4.	It is more important to produce safe food than taste or appearance.	17 (6.39)	43 (16.17)	182 (68.42)	18 (6.77)	6 (2.26)	0 (0.00)	0 (0)	403.59∗∗	0.25
5.	Food should be kept in covering.	116 (43.61)	29 (10.90)	118 (44.36)	3 (1.13)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0)	158.51∗∗	0.10
6.	Workers should not rub hand on face, hair, etc. while working	22 (8.27)	48 (18.05)	193 (72.56)	3 (1.13)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0)	336.20∗∗	0.21
7.	Well-cooked foods are free of contamination.	89 (33.46)	29 (10.90)	147 (55.26)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.38)	190.72∗∗	0.12
8.	Proper boiling temperature should be maintained.	32 (12.03)	25 (9.40)	205 (77.07)	0 (0.00)	3 (1.13)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.38)	555.13∗∗	0.35
9.	Foodborne illnesses can have economic effects on the society.	6 (2.26)	23 (8.65)	224 (84.21)	12 (4.51)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.38)	690.50∗∗	0.43
10.	Oil should not be reused, is harmful for health.	41 (15.41)	36 (13.53)	149 (56.02)	33 (12.41)	6 (2.26)	1 (0.38)	0 (0)	327.32∗∗	0.21
11.	The uses of paper/polythene packs for food packaging are not safe.	8 (3.01)	26 (9.77)	142 (53.38)	68 (25.56)	21 (7.89)	1 (0.38)	0 (0)	319.79∗∗	0.20
12.	During infectious disease in skin, it is necessary to take leave from work.	20 (7.52)	43 (16.17)	188 (70.68)	9 (3.38)	5 (1.88)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.38)	584.38∗∗	0.37
13.	Hand washing before handling food reduces the risk of food poisoning.	80 (30.08)	47 (17.67)	139 (52.26)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0)	49.00∗∗	0.03
14.	Using gloves, mask, cap and apron is important in reducing risk of foodborne illness.	26 (9.77)	33 (12.41)	187 (70.30)	12 (4.51)	5 (1.88)	1 (0.38)	2 (0.75)	705.26∗∗	0.44
15.	Food should not be touched with wounded hands.	60 (22.56)	41 (15.41)	158 (59.40)	1 (0.38)	3 (1.13)	3 (1.13)	0 (0)	416.65∗∗	0.26
16.	Vendors should not have long nails or coloring to reduce the risk.	65 (24.44)	33 (12.41)	166 (62.41)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.38)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.38)	351.90∗∗	0.22
17.	Vendors should not touch the money during food producing or distribution.	6 (2.26)	26 (9.77)	205 (77.07)	18 (6.77)	8 (3.01)	2 (0.75)	1 (0.38)	869.00∗∗	0.54
18.	Product should not be used after expiry date in labels.	99 (37.22)	15 (5.64)	151 (56.77)	1 (0.38)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0)	227.65∗∗	0.14

^∗∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), ∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.05), χ² = Chi square value, N=Frequencies, % = Percentages, SA = Strongly Agree, MA = Moderately Agree, PA = Partially Agree, PD = Partially Disagree, MD = Moderately Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree, NL = Neutral.

As Table 5 shows, the highest proportion of SFVs (70.3%) showed the medium level of attitude having the score from ≥67 to <83. Their attitudes score mean was 73.89 ± 7.37 where the minimum and maximum score was 57.41 and 94.44 respectively. Interestingly, the 100% of SFVs who had the bachelor level of education showed the medium level of attitude. In considering the mean score of attitudes, the educational status and training on food preparation-preservation of the SFVs had the significant differences among the different level. The mean attitudes score was significantly higher in SFVs having the bachelor level of education (93.98 ± 0.65) than who had the other level of education. Similarly, the SFVs having the training on food preparation-preservation (77.18 ± 8.30) had significantly higher mean attitudes score than the SFVs had no training.

Table 5.

Impression of socio-demographic variable on attitudes of street food vendors towards the food safety.

Categorical		Number of Respondents (%)			P value	Attitudes Score
Variable	Level	Low (<67)	Medium (67–83)	Acceptable (>83)		Mean ± SD	p value	Range
Gender of Vendors	Female	4 (21.1)	14 (73.7)	1 (5.3)	0.652f	71.93 ± 6.03	0.230‡	62.04–86.11
	Male	42 (17.0)	173 (70.0)	32 (13.0)		74.04 ± 7.46		57.41–94.44
Age (Years)	<18	1 (25.0)	2 (50.0)	1 (25.0)	0.511f	72.69a ± 11.97	0.120¥	59.26–87.04
	18 to 25	3 (11.5)	16 (61.5)	7 (26.9)		77.60a ± 8.08		62.96–93.52
	26 to 34	16 (20.3)	53 (67.1)	10 (12.7)		73.75a ± 7.77		58.33–92.59
	35 to 44	16 (17.6)	65 (71.4)	10 (11.0)		73.02a ± 6.96		57.41–93.52
	45 to 54	9 (16.4)	42 (76.4)	4 (7.3)		73.53a ± 6.84		62.04–94.44
	55 and above	1 (9.1)	9 (81.8)	1 (9.1)		75.59a ± 5.21		64.81–84.26
Marital Status	Married	36 (16.1)	162 (72.6)	25 (11.2)	0.213f	73.85a ± 7.17	0.851¥	57.41–94.44
	Unmarried	9 (23.1)	22 (56.4)	8 (20.5)		74.29a ± 8.59		59.26–93.52
	Divorced	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)	0 (0.0)		72.22a ± 7.82		62.96–78.70
Education	Illiterate	7 (11.5)	45 (73.8)	9 (14.8)	0.107f	74.32b ± 6.84	0.001¥	62.04–88.89
	Primary	26 (20.8)	87 (69.6)	12 (9.6)		72.81b ± 6.97		59.26–93.52
	SSC	10 (15.9)	46 (73.0)	7 (11.1)		74.79b ± 7.63		57.41–93.52
	HSC	3 (20.0)	9 (60.0)	3 (20.0)		74.63b ± 8.26		58.33–89.81
	Bachelor	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (100.0)		93.98a ± 0.65		93.52–94.44
Experience (Years)	<5	13 (16.0)	60 (74.1)	8 (9.9)	0.459Pr	73.91a ± 7.28	0.634¥	58.33–94.44
	5–9	12 (13.8)	60 (69.0)	15 (17.2)		74.28a ± 7.24		62.96–92.59
	10–14	11 (24.4)	28 (62.2)	6 (13.3)		73.74a ± 8.99		57.41–93.52
	15–19	4 (19.0)	17 (81.0)	0 (0.0)		71.56a ± 4.41		62.96–78.70
	≥20	6 (18.8)	22 (68.8)	4 (12.5)		74.51a ± 7.13		62.04–92.59
Monthly Income (BDT)	<10 K	6 (23.1)	15 (57.7)	5 (19.2)	0.685Pr	74.43a ± 8.49	0.550¥	62.04–91.67
	10 K to <20 K	13 (13.7)	71 (74.7)	11 (11.6)		73.95a ± 6.61		58.33–92.59
	20 K to <30 K	14 (21.2)	45 (68.2)	7 (10.6)		72.82a ± 7.93		57.41–93.52
	≥30 K	13 (16.5)	56 (70.9)	10 (12.7)		74.53a ± 7.42		62.96–94.44
TFSH	No	45 (18.1)	174 (69.9)	30 (12.0)	0.444f	73.66 ± 7.24	0.057‡	57.41–94.44
	Yes	1 (5.9)	13 (76.5)	3 (17.6)		77.18 ± 8.72		58.33–92.59
TFPP	No	45 (18.9)	165 (69.3)	28 (11.8)	0.084f	73.50 ± 7.18	0.012‡	57.41–94.44
	Yes	1 (3.6)	22 (78.6)	5 (17.9)		77.18 ± 8.30		58.33–93.52
Total		46 (17.3)	187 (70.3)	33 (12.4)		73.89 ± 7.37		57.41–94.44

^abc:- Column values with same letters do not differ significantly, f = Fisher exact tests, P_r = Pearson's Chi-square test, ‡ = Independent sample T test, ¥ = One way ANOVA, p = Probability value, χ² = Chi square value, p < 0.05 = 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 = 1% level of significance, N=Frequencies, % = Percentages, BDT = Bangladeshi Taka, K= Thousand, TFSH = Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP = Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

4.4. Food safety practices by street food vendors (SFVs)

The data presented in Table 6, indicates the food safety practices of SFVs. All the practice statements were significantly different in considering the three-category response. The effect size of all statement regarding the SFVs practice were less than 0.8 indicating that the response had no any high effect. The SFVs (80.83%) reported that they always used same utensils to serve/prepare food. Additionally, 71.80% SFVs always touched the money during serving or preparing the foods. However, 80.08% SFVs always used safe water for making food and drinking purpose. Among the occasionally practices, 77.07% SFVs used apron/mask/cap/gloves at work, 71.80% SFVs handled foods while suffering in diarrhoea and also 66.54% SFVs smoked while handling foods. On the other hand, the 65.79% SFVs never rubbed hands on face, hair, etc. while working and 63.91% SFVs never eat or drink during the working.

Table 6.

Food safety practices responses of street food vendors.

Sl.No.	Statements	Response N (%)			χ2 Value	Effect Size
		All-time	Occasional	Never
1.	Vendors handled money while serving food	191 (71.80)	8 (3.01)	67 (25.19)	196.79∗∗	0.37
2.	Wearing the jewelleries and watch while working	71 (26.69)	120 (45.11)	75 (28.20)	16.70∗∗	0.03
3.	Vendors smoked while handling food	6 (2.26)	177 (66.54)	83 (31.20)	165.44∗∗	0.31
4.	Eating or drinking is common while working.	52 (19.55)	44 (16.54)	170 (63.91)	112.27∗∗	0.21
5.	Handling foods while suffering in diarrhoea	18 (6.77)	191 (71.80)	57 (21.43)	185.74∗∗	0.35
6.	Nails are long and remain all adornments	135 (50.75)	21 (7.89)	110 (41.35)	80.99∗∗	0.15
7.	Oil is reused frequently.	103 (38.72)	67 (25.19)	96 (36.09)	8.22∗∗	0.02
8.	Food is prepared in open place	152 (57.14)	80 (30.08)	34 (12.78)	79.79∗∗	0.15
9.	Vendor uses same utensils to serve/prepare food.	215 (80.83)	20 (7.52)	31 (11.65)	270.68∗∗	0.51
10.	Rubbing hands on face, hair, etc. while working.	45 (16.92)	46 (17.29)	175 (65.79)	126.10∗∗	0.24
11.	Use of apron/mask/cap/gloves at work daily	31 (11.65)	205 (77.07)	30 (11.28)	228.96∗∗	0.43
12.	Washing hands before processing food	151 (56.77)	22 (8.27)	93 (34.96)	94.16∗∗	0.18
13.	Washing of hands by soap after using toilet	188 (70.68)	18 (6.77)	60 (22.56)	176.87∗∗	0.33
14.	Utensils cleaned every time after usage	142 (53.38)	33 (12.41)	91 (34.21)	67.09∗∗	0.13
15.	Utensils were remained in covering.	109 (40.98)	71 (26.69)	86 (32.33)	8.26∗∗	0.02
16.	Use detergent to clean the utensils.	112 (42.11)	36 (13.53)	118 (44.36)	47.13∗∗	0.09
17.	Food stored or displayed in sealed containers.	98 (36.84)	118 (44.36)	50 (18.80)	27.55∗∗	0.05
18.	Safe water is used for making food and drinking	213 (80.08)	12 (4.51)	41 (15.41)	266.26∗∗	0.50
19.	Raw and cooked food items are stored separately	186 (69.92)	35 (13.16)	45 (16.92)	160.84∗∗	0.30
20.	Using soaps/detergents to wash hands	93 (34.96)	46 (17.29)	127 (47.74)	37.32∗∗	0.07
21.	Vending stalls are maintained in clean conditions	137 (51.50)	50 (18.80)	79 (29.70)	44.26∗∗	0.08

^∗∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), ∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.05), χ² = Chi square value, N=Frequencies, % = Percentages.

The impression of socio-demographic variable on food safety practices score rating of the SFVs are presented in Table 7. Among the three-practice score rating (“low”, “medium” and “acceptable”), the highest proportion of SFVs (47.7%) was practicing in the medium level. The SFVs practice score level was significantly associated with their educational status. The 50% of the SFVs who achieved the bachelor education had the acceptable score and the rest 50% had the medium score on practices toward the food safety. After that the highest proportion of SFVs (73.3%) of HSC level of education were practicing in medium level towards the food safety. Majority of the illiterate SFVs (57.4%) also had the low level of practice score. The SFVs had the practice score mean of 55.37 ± 15.08 towards the food safety. The mean practice score was significantly difference for the demographic variable of educational status, TFSH and TFPP. In case of educational status, the highest mean was in SFVs of bachelor education amounting 67.86 ± 21.88. The SFVs who had the TFSH and TFPP showed the considerably higher mean of practice score, 63.86 ± 13.71 and 61.99 ± 14.65 respectively. The minimum and maximum practice score towards the food safety achieved by any individual SFVs were 16.67and 90.48 respectively.

Table 7.

Impression of socio-demographic variable on practices of street food vendors towards the food safety.

Categorical		Number of Respondents (%)			p value	Practices Score
Variable	Level	Low (<50)	Medium (50–75)	Acceptable (>75)		Mean ± SD	p value	Range
Gender of Vendors	Female	11 (57.9)	6 (31.6)	2 (10.5)	0.301Pr	51.76 ± 16.07	0.279‡	23.81–85.71
	Male	100 (40.5)	121 (49.0)	26 (10.5)		55.65a ± 14.99		16.67–90.48
Age (Years)	<18	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)	0 (0.0)	0.458f	52.98a ± 17.75	0.179¥	30.95–73.81
	18 to 25	13 (50.0)	11 (42.3)	2 (7.7)		48.99a ± 18.55		16.67–83.33
	26 to 34	30 (38.0)	37 (46.8)	12 (15.2)		57.56a ± 14.83		28.57–85.71
	35 to 44	41 (45.1)	45 (49.5)	5 (5.5)		54.61a ± 13.77		23.81–80.95
	45 to 54	22 (40.0)	24 (43.6)	9 (16.4)		57.10a ± 15.78		30.95–90.48
	55 and above	4 (36.4)	7 (63.6)	0 (0.0)		53.25a ± 11.33		35.71–71.43
Marital Status	Married	94 (42.2)	107 (48.0)	22 (9.9)	0.848f	55.66a ± 14.35	0.726¥	23.81–90.48
	Unmarried	15 (38.5)	18 (46.2)	6 (15.4)		53.60a ± 18.81		16.67–83.33
	Divorced	2 (50.0)	2 (50.0)	0 (0.0)		56.55a ± 17.43		38.10–71.43
Education	Illiterate	35 (57.4)	21 (34.4)	5 (8.2)	0.012f	51.02a ± 15.94	0.029¥	16.67–83.33
	Primary	51 (40.8)	58 (46.4)	16 (12.8)		55.94a ± 14.95		19.05–85.71
	SSC	23 (36.5)	36 (57.1)	4 (6.3)		56.24a ± 13.79		30.95–90.48
	HSC	2 (13.3)	11 (73.3)	2 (13.3)		63.01a ± 13.52		33.33–85.71
	Bachelor	0 (0.0)	1 (50.0)	1 (50.0)		67.86a ± 21.88		52.38–83.33
Experience (Years)	<5	34 (42.0)	37 (45.7)	10 (12.3)	0.595Pr	53.94a ± 15.37	0.637¥	16.67–83.33
	5–9	37 (42.5)	42 (48.3)	8 (9.2)		55.06a ± 15.97		21.43–85.71
	10–14	20 (44.4)	24 (53.3)	1 (2.2)		55.40a ± 12.29		35.71–80.95
	15–19	8 (38.1)	10 (47.6)	3 (14.3)		58.96a ± 14.73		38.10–85.71
	≥20	12 (37.5)	14 (43.8)	6 (18.8)		57.44a ± 15.88		30.95–90.48
Monthly Income (BDT)	<10 K	12 (46.2)	14 (53.8)	0 (0.0)	0.301Pr	50.28a ± 14.46	0.053¥	16.67–71.43
	10 K to <20 K	42 (44.2)	46 (48.4)	7 (7.4)		53.41a ± 14.81		21.43–85.71
	20 K to <30 K	26 (39.4)	29 (43.9)	11 (16.7)		57.58a ± 15.57		28.57–90.48
	≥30 K	31 (39.2)	38 (48.1)	10 (12.7)		57.57a ± 14.71		28.57–83.33
TFSH	No	108 (43.4)	115 (46.2)	26 (10.4)	0.104Pr	54.79 ± 15.01	0.016‡	16.67–90.48
	Yes	3 (17.6)	12 (70.6)	2 (11.8)		63.86 ± 13.71		33.33–83.33
TFPP	No	104 (43.7)	110 (46.2)	24 (10.1)	0.164Pr	54.59 ± 14.96	0.017‡	16.67–90.48
	Yes	7 (25.0)	17 (60.7)	4 (14.3)		61.99 ± 14.65		33.33–85.71
Total		111 (41.7)	127 (47.7)	28 (10.5)		55.37 ± 15.08		16.67–90.48

^abc:- Column values with same letters do not differ significantly, f = Fisher exact tests, P_r = Pearson's Chi-square test, ‡ = Independent sample T test, ¥ = One way ANOVA, p = Probability value, χ² = Chi square value, p < 0.05 = 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 = 1% level of significance, N=Frequencies, % = Percentages, BDT = Bangladeshi Taka, K= Thousand, TFSH = Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP = Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

4.5. Correlation analysis

Figure 2 shows the Spearman's correlation between the different socio-demographic variables and KAP scores on food safety of street food vendors. The knowledge score of SFVs food safety had a significantly (p < 0.01) positive low strength correlation with the monthly income (r_s = 0.218) of SFVs. Similarly, the attitudes score had the significantly (p < 0.05) positive low strength correlation with the training on food safety-hygiene (r_s = 0.121) and training on food preparation-preservation (r_s = 0.154). The food safety practices score exhibited the positive low strength correlation with the educational status (r_s = 0.17, p < 0.01), monthly income (r_s = 0.147, p < 0.05), training on food safety-hygiene (r_s = 0.152, p < 0.05) and training on food preparation-preservation (r_s = 0.151, p < 0.05). Though the genders of SFVs had the positive low strength correlation with the monthly income (r_s = 0.142, p < 0.05) and educational status (r_s = 0.131, p < 0.05), but had the low strength negative correlation with the age of the SFVs (r_s = -0.124, p < 0.05). The correlation results of demographic variables age of the SFVs, had the low strength negative correlation with the educational status (r_s = −0.257, p < 0.01), training on food safety-hygiene (r_s = −0.167, p < 0.01) and training on food preparation-preservation (r_s = −0.177, p < 0.01), and the negative but moderate correlation was with marital status (r_s = −0.433, p < 0.01) of SFVs. Moreover, the age of the SFVs was positively correlated with experience on food vending (r_s = 0.528, p < 0.01) having the substantial strength. On the other hand, the marital status negatively correlated with experience on vending (r_s = −0.289, p < 0.01). Educational status was low strength positively correlated training on food safety-hygiene (r_s = 0.209, p < 0.01) and training on food preparation-preservation (r_s = 0.267, p < 0.01). Surprisingly, the training on food safety-hygiene was strong positively correlated with training on food preparation-preservation (r_s = −0.762, p < 0.01).

Figure 2.

The Spearman correlation between different socio-demographic variables and KAP score on food safety of street food vendors. ∗∗Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), ∗Significant at 5% (p < 0.05), SK = Score on Knowledge, SA = Score on Attitudes, SP = Score on Practices, GSFV = Gender of Street Food Vendors, ASFV = Age of Street Food Vendors, MS = Marital Status, ES = Educational Status, EFV = Experience on Food Vending, MI = Monthly Income, TFSH = Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP = Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

The results of Pearson's correlation within the KAP score were potted in Figure 3A, B, and C. The scattered plots demonstrate the distribution of KAP score and expressing the correlation and linear equation among the knowledge, attitudes and practice scores. In where, the knowledge score had a positively moderate strength of correlation with attitudes score (r = 0.342, p < 0.01) and practice score (r = 0.389, P < 0.01) having the regression equation, y = 0.25∗x + 56.12 (Figure 3A) and y = 0.57∗x + 14.01 respectively (Figure 3B). Besides, a significantly (p < 0.01) positive correlation of medium strength was observed between the attitudes and practice score (r = 0.328) with the regression equation, y = 0.67∗x + 5.81 (Figure 3C) indicating the practice score will increase when the attitudes score will be raised.

Figure 3.

Scatter diagrams showing the Pearson linear correlations of (A) Knowledge Score with Attitudes Score, (B) Knowledge Score with Practices Score, and (C) Attitudes Score with Practices Score of street food vendors. p < 0.05 = 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 = 1% level of significance.

5. Discussion

The present findings revealed that, the SFVs had the comparatively higher knowledge and attitudes score than the practice score during this COVID 19 situation in Bangladesh. In our study the majority SFVs were male. This finding is in accordance with other reports where majority of the SFVs in Bangladesh were male [12, 13]. In other countries, higher proportion of females were involved in street food vending [1, 18, 21], these might be due to women mostly work in the sectors connected with the domestic employment, for instance the processing and preparation of food [22]. But in Bangladesh, the fewer proportion of women are involved in food sales because mostly they engage in the household activity and play the maternal roles [23]. Among the age range, highest proportion of the SFVs were 35–44 years of age. Though this result discord the findings of Mamun et al. (2020) [13], who found majority SFVs age were from 18 to 25 years. But our findings has the little bit of similarities to studies in Ghana [21]. This might be due to age and the socio-economic conditions of the SFVs of a certain area. Most of the SFVs were married because of this, higher proportion of adult aged persons were SFVs. Similar report was also in Bangladesh where 86.5% Chotpoti vendors were married [14]. The most of the SFVs had just primary level of education and experience about 5–9 years. This might be due to most of the SFVs are early school leavers. Anyway, the same trends also observed by the other author Ferdaus et al. (2020) [12]. A greater number of SFVs reported that they had no any training on food safety, hygiene even so on food preparation and preservation. Similar cases also reported in other country, as one study in Ghana, found that only 8.1% SFVs received the training. Although training and education may contribute to advancement the food safety and hygiene knowledge of the SFVs reflected on perpetual changes in practices and attitudes [24]. In this study, majority proportion of SFVs had the knowledge on personal hygiene and regular hand washing. The personal hygiene knowledge is important to minimize the spread of foodborne diseases [25] and also proper knowledge on handwashing can decrease the incidence of diarrhea. However, higher number of SFVs had the knowledge score between ≥50 to <75. Though this result shows dissimilarities to Ferdaus et al. (2020) [12], but corroborate the findings of Chen et al. (2019) [1], who found 54 % SFVs was in ≥50 to <75 in China. These variations might be due to different period of study. On the other hand, the mean knowledge score was near to the study reported by Ferdaus et al. (2020) [12], which was comparably higher than SFVs mean knowledge score in Malaysia [26] and Turkey [27]. Particularly, the SFVs having the bachelor's level education had the higher knowledge score. This finding was, because SFVs with a higher educational status trend to have higher knowledge on food safety than those who are less educated [12]. However, there were no significant differences in the SFVs level of knowledge score about food safety with regards to their demographic characteristics. These findings are in line with the previous studies in Bangladesh [12]. The SFVs attitudes score was indicating they have a satisfactory level of concept about food safety in their mind. This is in line with previous reports, such as one in Haiti [28]. Interestingly, all SFVs of bachelor level education were bearing the good level of attitudes. This observation indicates that there is a strong linkage between attitudes and educational status of SFVs, ultimately initiate the safe food handling practices [29]. Moreover, the food safety attitudes of SFVs are greatly influenced by the training [30]. Though the majority portion of SFVs were partially agree with that they should not touch the money during the vending, but they should have the attitude of strongly agree with this statement. Because money is one of the most frequent source for microbial transmission [31]. Results obtained through the KAP questionnaire indicated that the lowest mean scores were found on the practice section. A similar result was found in studies by Ferdaus et al. (2020) [12]. Furthermore, the self-reported food safety and hygiene practice shows that good number of SFVs occasionally, smoked while vending, touched the food while suffering in diarrhoea and didn't wear any personal protective equipment. The lacking of proper knowledge on food safety may one of the potential reasons of their irregular for personal hygiene practice [21]. The practice score of SFVs was significantly associated with the educational status and training. Similar result was stated in another study by da Cunha et al. (2019) [32]. This might be due to the influence of education on daily life.

The result of Spearman (r_s) correlation indicating the attitudes and practice score were significantly correlated with the training of both on food safety-hygiene and food preparation-preservation which is in accordance with the findings of Vitória et al. (2021) [18]. In addition, the only practice score had the significant (p < 0.01) correlation with the educational status [12]. Nevertheless, monthly income of SFVs wasn't significantly correlated to their food safety and hygiene practice. But not in accordance with this result, a similar study conducted in Ethiopia showed that the increase of monthly income raised the level of food safety practice [33].

In the current Pearson's correlation analysis, the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of SFVs towards the food safety was positively correlated with each other. In other studies, the significant positive correlations within the KAP score was also reported [12, 34]. Interestingly, another study [30] proposed that an outline in which food safety knowledge and attitudes are considered to be the major basis of the use of safe food handling practices.

6. Conclusion

This study revealed that the KAP score of SFVs were in medium level. But the knowledge and attitudes score were significantly higher than practices score in the study area. Hence, the KAP score were significantly correlated with each other. Moreover, the educational level and training had the significant influence on attitudes and practice score of the SFVs. In addition, most of the SFVs had low educational levels and had no any training on food safety-hygiene even though on food preparation-preservation. In fact, most of them were early school leaver, specifically at the primary stage of education. This factors significantly contributed to their less food safety practices. In this regard, a regular basis training on basics of food-safety and cotemporary knowledge could be imposed to improve the KAP score of the SFVs. Furthermore, some educational content on basic food safety in the primary and secondary level of education can be starting point of food safety knowledge. Therefore, this study could be the basis of further research on microbial assessment of the street foods and their impact on public health.

7. Limitations

The present study is subject to some limitations. First, the sampling size was not same for different district. Second, the self-reported data by SFVs on food safety practices, may had some variation than their actual practices. In addition, it is known that the presence of data collector in the working situation may had some influence on responses to a questionnaire. Lastly, the food habit is unlike in different area, for this the result may had a little bit of fluctuation than other studies.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Mirza Mienur Meher: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Marya Afrin: Performed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Anup Kumar Talukder, Md. Golam Haider: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.