Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: [Link]/heliyon

Research article

Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of street food vendors on food

safety in selected areas of Bangladesh
Mirza Mienur Meher a, *, Marya Afrin b, Anup Kumar Talukder c, Md. Golam Haider d
a
Department of Microbiology and Public Health, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, 1706, Bangladesh
b
Department of Anatomy and Histology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh
c
Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Health, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, 1706, Bangladesh
d
Department of Pathobiology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, 1706, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study determined the food-safety situation of street food by analyzing the KAP of street food vendors (SFVs).
Food-hygiene A quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among the 266 SFVs through structured ques-
Food-safety tionnaire from October to December, 2020. Majority of the SFVs were male (92.86%), age between 35 to 44 years
Knowledge
(34.21%), married (83.83%), had primary education (46.99%), experience of 5–9 years (32.71%), and monthly
Attitude
Practice
income was <10000 BDT (35.71%). Additionally, utmost had no any training on food-safety (93.61%), and food
Street food vendors preparation-preservation (89.47%). The knowledge and practice score of “
50 to <75” was for highest propor-
tion 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 atti-
tudes score (r ¼ 0.342, p < 0.01) and practice score (r ¼ 0.389, p < 0.01); having the regression-equation, y ¼
0.25*x þ 56.12 and y ¼ 0.57*x þ 14.01 respectively. Besides, the similar correlation was also observed between
attitudes and practice score (r ¼ 0.328, p < 0.01) with the regression, y ¼ 0.67*x þ 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.

1. Introduction cereus, Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp. and

so forth are present in street foods [7]. Moreover, street food safety has
A wide variety of ready-to-eat (RTE) foods when prepared and sold by become a most important food safety concern as a result of poor food
the vendors on the streets or any public places, are commonly known as hygiene and management conditions [8]. Therefore, three important
“Street food” [1]. Approximately 2.5 billion people, mostly the factors, knowledge and attitudes of street food vendors (SFVs) and hy-
low-income people widely consumed the street foods everyday due to giene practices have an essential role on establishing the safety and hy-
cheap and easily available, which supports their livelihood [2]. Conse- giene in food preparation and vending on the street [9]. In many
quently, it is an usual complication that the SFVs suffer from different low-income countries, the regressive, jobless urban or rural population
foodborne diseases, most commonly, the food poisoning, diarrhea, are having an employment opportunity based on this street food vending
typhoid fever and cholera [3]. Basically, the unhygienic practices during [10], because of low investment in this business. However, majority of
food preparation and vending facilitate the environment that the path- the SFVs are relatively unschooled and often unaware, and have poor
ogenic microorganisms can be speedily increased in number along with operative regulatory or supervisory control [11].
their growth and transmission, resulting the food borne illness [4]. In Bangladesh, many big cities as well as small towns and rural areas
Moreover, a large scale of food preparation has the higher chance of are very much familiar with street food and popular to the locals and
contamination by food handlers. Because less attention to hygiene per- tourists. Although, previous research has been evaluated on the knowl-
mits the pathogenic microorganism to contaminate the foods [5, 6]. edge, attitudes and practices of SFVs in some selected area of Bangladesh
Usually, the pathogenic microorganism, such as Escherichia coli, Bacillus [12, 13, 14]. But the knowledge levels of SFVs are dissimilar on food

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mienur@[Link] (M.M. Meher).

[Link]
Received 30 April 2022; Received in revised form 26 October 2022; Accepted 29 November 2022
2405-8440/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ([Link]
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

Figure 1. Spatial location of the study population (street food vendors) in different area of Bangladesh.

safety, and every so often, an acceptable knowledge level does not reflect participants (street food vendors) and, their participation was voluntary
into good hygienic practices specially when processing and vending and willingly.
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 2.2. Study area and sample size
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 A quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among
distancing, hand washing, lockdown measures and etc. [16]. In this the street food vendors (SFVs) in Bangladesh. In this research, the study
COVID-19 pandemic situation, there has been also changes in the locations were considered in different areas of 10 districts of the country
knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of SFVs to run their business. located between 24 340 to 23 810 north latitude and 89 400 to 90 980
To the best of our knowledge, no studies have been performed on the east longitude. The study location was mostly central area of Bangladesh
KAP of SFVs during this COVID-19 pandemic situation in Bangladesh. including capital district and others are nearer. Day by day many in-
Particularly, many people are mostly depending on the street food in the dustries are growing in this area as well as the density of population is
study area due to the development of industries. So, food safety is an increasing. The spatial location of the study areas where data was
important concern for SFVs in the growingly industrial area of collected shown in Figure 1. The ArcGIS-ArcMap version 10.8 (ESRI,
Bangladesh. Additionally, an update study is required on food safety, USA) software was used to prepare the study map. The data were
especially during the pandemic situation to provide an adequate collected through a structured questionnaire for SFVs during the period
wholesome food basically to the busy employed human beings which is of October to December, 2020. According to the formula of the other
essential for their existence. author [17], the sample size in the study area was determined (eq. (1)).
Hence, this study was designed to ascertain the food safety situation
of street food through understanding of the KAP score of SFVs. z2 Pð1  PÞ ð1:96Þ2  0:22ð1  0:22Þ
n¼ 2
;n¼ ; n ¼ 263:68 ffi 264 (1)
d ð0:05Þ2
2. Materials and methods
where n ¼ sample size, Z ¼ 1.96 (95% confidence level), P ¼ expected
2.1. Ethical consideration prevalence or proportion (in proportion of one; 22.38%, P ¼ 0.22), and
d ¼ precision (in proportion of one; whereas P ¼ 0.22, therefore d ¼
The ethics of this study was in accordance to research ethics followed 0.05).
by the Department of Microbiology and Public Health, Faculty of Vet- The expected proportion of KAP score of SFVs was 22.38%, obtained
erinary Medicine and Animal Science, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur through a pilot study. The calculated sample size was 264 as respondent.
Rahman Agricultural University. The ethical consent number was And finally, a total of 266 street food vendors (SFVs) data especially who
BSMRAU/FVMAS/MPH/20 (Ethical Approval)/2020/01. Particularly, vended in the market area, were considered as sample size in this study.
informed consent and verbal agreement was also sought from the all The multiple random sampling techniques were applied to select the

2
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of food vendors. Table 2. Food safety knowledge responses of street food vendors.

Categorical Response χ 2 Value Effect Sl.N. Statements Response N (%) χ 2 value Effect
Size Size
Variable Level N ¼ 266 % Yes No Don't
Gender of Vendors Female 19.00 7.14 195.43** 0.734 response

Male 247.00 92.86 1. Pathogenic 225 1 40 323.02** 0.61

microorganism can (84.59) (0.38) (15.04)
Age (Years) <18 4.00 1.50 148.14** 0.111
transmit through
18 to 25 26.00 9.77 contaminated food.
26 to 34 79.00 29.70 2. Maintaining 253 1 12 457.54** 0.86
35 to 44 91.00 34.21 personal hygiene is (95.11) (0.38) (4.51)
essential for food
45 to 54 55.00 20.68
producers and
55 and above 11.00 4.14 handlers.
Marital Status Married 223.00 83.83 312.19** 0.588 3. Washing hands 243 10 13 403.00** 0.76
Unmarried 39.00 14.66 regularly before and (91.35) (3.76) (4.89)
Divorced 4.00 1.50 after the work is a
part of personal
Education Illiterate 61.00 22.93 176.56** 0.165
hygiene
Primary 125.00 46.99
4. Use of apron, mask, 99 33 134 59.33** 0.11
SSC 63.00 23.68 gloves, and caps (37.22) (12.41) (50.38)
HSC 15.00 5.64 during food selling
Bachelor 2.00 0.75 is the part of
personal hygiene
Experience (Years) <5 81.00 30.45 65.20** 0.061
5. Washing with only 208 23 35 241.72** 0.45
5–9 87.00 32.71
water can't clean the (78.20) (8.65) (13.16)
10–14 45.00 16.92 hands enough.
15–19 21.00 7.89 6. Workers should 117 26 123 66.64** 0.13

20 32.00 12.03 avoid touching their (43.98) (9.77) (46.24)
hair and cloth after
Monthly Income <10000 26.00 9.77 39.23** 0.049
washing hands
(BDT) <10 K 95.00 35.71
7. Washing utensils 213 11 42 266.94** 0.50
10 K to <20 K 66.00 24.81 with detergent (80.08) (4.14) (15.79)
20 K to <30 K 79.00 29.70 leaves them free of
TFS No 249.00 93.61 202.35** 0.761 contamination.

Yes 17.00 6.39 8. Proper cleaning and 220 7 39 297.57** 0.56

sanitization of (82.71) (2.63) (14.66)
TFPP No 238.00 89.47 165.79** 0.623
utensils decrease
Yes 28.00 10.53 the risk of food
contamination.
**
Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), χ ¼ Chi square value, N¼Frequencies, % ¼
2

Percentages, BDT ¼ Bangladeshi Taka, K¼ Thousand, TFSH ¼ Training on Food 9. Covering food at all 235 8 23 363.53** 0.68
times improves the (88.35) (3.01) (8.65)
Safety-Hygiene, TFPP ¼ Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.
safety of food.
10. Dirt of street can 225 12 29 316.07** 0.59
study participants. The only unwillingness to contribute was the exclu- seriously (84.59) (4.51) (10.90)
sion criteria. contaminate the
open food

2.3. Questionnaire 11. Exchanging of 86 31 149 78.64** 0.15

money by hand is a (32.33) (11.65) (56.02)
source of
A structured questionnaire was used to assess the food safety contamination
knowledge, attitudes and practices of street food vendors, were adapted 12. Use of same utensil 81 40 145 63.17** 0.12
from similar past studies, stating on the knowledge on food safety and for distribution of (30.45) (15.04) (54.51)
attitudes and safe food handling practices of SFVs [1, 12, 18]. The food may increase
questions were translated from English to the mother tongue “Bengali” the contamination.

and the responses were recorded into the English language. Translation 13. Hepatitis A virus is a 32 16 218 284.42** 0.54
food borne (12.03) (6.02) (81.95)
of the questionnaire was directed by a bilingualist, which was also pathogens
checked by an independent research assistant.
14. Jaundice can be 107 14 145 102.46** 0.19
caused due to eating (40.23) (5.26) (54.51)
3. Measures of contaminated
food
The structured questionnaire was comprised with four sections. First, 15. Typhoid fever can 77 14 175 148.47** 0.28
be transmitted by (28.95) (5.26) (65.79)
the socio-demographic section which comprised the variable of food
contaminated food
handlers' gender, age, marital status, educational status, experience on
16. Bloody diarrhea can 137 9 120 109.00** 0.21
vending, monthly income, training on food safety and hygiene (TFSH), be caused by the (51.50) (3.38) (45.11)
and training on food preparation and preservation (TFPP). Second, the ingestion of
knowledge section of the questionnaire which intended to assess the SFVs contaminated food
on their food safety knowledge of personal hygiene, cross contamination, 17. Microbes are 41 21 204 227.29** 0.43
microorganisms, food-borne diseases, packaging and so forth. This sec- commonly present (15.41) (7.89) (76.69)
in the skin, nose and
tion included 21 close-ended questions with each with three possible
answers; “yes”, “no” and “don't know” where the allocated point for these (continued on next page)

3
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

Table 2 (continued ) three responses were 2, 1 and 0 respectively. The possible score range for
Sl.N. Statements Response N (%) χ 2 value Effect knowledge section was 0–42 points. Then the scores were converted to
Size 100 points. Third, the attitudes section where the questions pertaining to
Yes No Don't
response
determine the impression of SFVs towards the food safety. Here, attitudes
were used to denote “a complex mental state involving beliefs, feelings,
mouth of healthy
handlers values and dispositions to act in certain ways” [19]. In this section
18. Eating and drinking 60 72 134 35.58** 0.07 included 18 questions having 7 possible answers. A six-point rating scale
in the work place (22.56) (27.07) (50.38) (Strongly agree ¼ 6; Moderately agree ¼ 5; Partially agree ¼ 4; Partially
increase the risk of disagree ¼ 3; Moderately disagree ¼ 2; Strongly Disagree ¼ 1 and Neutral
food contamination ¼ 0) was used to evaluate the SFVs attitudes. The score range was be-
19. Re-selling and use of 196 49 21 199.32** 0.38 tween 0 to 108 and converted to 100 points. Lastly, in the section four,
leftover food from (73.68) (18.42) (7.89)
which comprised with 21 questions regarding the food hygiene practices
the previous day is
not safe. by SFVs. Among the 21 questions, the first 10 were negatively practiced
20. Food prepared in 62 30 174 128.96** 0.24 on food hygiene and the rest of the questions were positively. In each
advance reduces the (23.31) (11.28) (65.41) question had the possible three answer: “Always”, “Often” and “Never”.
risk of food Three points rating scale was used for respondents to rate the level of
contamination. impact of each practice. The questions which indicating the negatively
21. Food can be 25 63 178 143.15** 0.27 practice on food safety, the point 0, 1 and 2 was awarded for the possible
contaminated by (9.40) (23.68) (66.92)
response of “Always”, “Often” and “Never” respectively. On the other
reheating of cooked
foods. 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
**
Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), *Significant at 1% (p < 0.05), χ 2 ¼ Chi square
“Never” respectively. The possible score range for practices section was
value, N¼Frequencies, % ¼ Percentages.
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

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 0.292z 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
a
5–9 3 (3.4) 45 (51.7) 39 (44.8) 74.08  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) 0.087 f
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 0.546z 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 0.193z 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 ¼ Fisher exact tests, Pr ¼ Pearson's Chi-square test, z ¼ Independent sample T test, ¥ ¼ One way
ANOVA, p ¼ Probability value, χ 2 ¼ Chi square value, p < 0.05 ¼ 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 ¼ 1% level of significance, N¼Frequencies, % ¼ Percentages, BDT ¼
Bangladeshi Taka, K¼ Thousand, TFSH ¼ Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP ¼ Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

4
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

Table 4. Food safety attitudes responses of street food vendors.

Sl Statements Response N (%) χ 2 Value Effect

Size
SA MA PA PD MD SD NL
1. Training on Food hygiene for workers is essential to reduce 46 42 164 10 (3.76) 2 (0.75) 2 (0.75) 0 (0) 430.63** 0.27
the foodborne illness (17.29) (15.79) (61.65)
2. Personal hygiene is important to prevent foodborne illness 75 26 (9.77) 165 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0) 112.11** 0.07
(28.20) (62.03)
3. Providing the safe food is an important part of job 116 34 115 0 (0.00) 1 (0.38) 0 (0.00) 0 (0) 152.62** 0.10
responsibility. (43.61) (12.78) (43.23)
4. It is more important to produce safe food than taste or 17 (6.39) 43 182 18 (6.77) 6 (2.26) 0 (0.00) 0 (0) 403.59** 0.25
appearance. (16.17) (68.42)
5. Food should be kept in covering. 116 29 118 3 (1.13) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0) 158.51** 0.10
(43.61) (10.90) (44.36)
6. Workers should not rub hand on face, hair, etc. while 22 (8.27) 48 193 3 (1.13) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0) 336.20** 0.21
working (18.05) (72.56)
7. Well-cooked foods are free of contamination. 89 29 147 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 190.72** 0.12
(33.46) (10.90) (55.26) (0.38)
8. Proper boiling temperature should be maintained. 32 25 (9.40) 205 0 (0.00) 3 (1.13) 0 (0.00) 1 555.13** 0.35
(12.03) (77.07) (0.38)
9. Foodborne illnesses can have economic effects on the 6 (2.26) 23 (8.65) 224 12 (4.51) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 690.50** 0.43
society. (84.21) (0.38)
10. Oil should not be reused, is harmful for health. 41 36 149 33 6 (2.26) 1 (0.38) 0 (0) 327.32** 0.21
(15.41) (13.53) (56.02) (12.41)
11. The uses of paper/polythene packs for food packaging are 8 (3.01) 26 (9.77) 142 68 21 1 (0.38) 0 (0) 319.79** 0.20
not safe. (53.38) (25.56) (7.89)
12. During infectious disease in skin, it is necessary to take leave 20 (7.52) 43 188 9 (3.38) 5 (1.88) 0 (0.00) 1 584.38** 0.37
from work. (16.17) (70.68) (0.38)
13. Hand washing before handling food reduces the risk of food 80 47 139 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0) 49.00** 0.03
poisoning. (30.08) (17.67) (52.26)
14. Using gloves, mask, cap and apron is important in reducing 26 (9.77) 33 187 12 (4.51) 5 (1.88) 1 (0.38) 2 705.26** 0.44
risk of foodborne illness. (12.41) (70.30) (0.75)
15. Food should not be touched with wounded hands. 60 41 158 1 (0.38) 3 (1.13) 3 (1.13) 0 (0) 416.65** 0.26
(22.56) (15.41) (59.40)
16. Vendors should not have long nails or coloring to reduce the 65 33 166 0 (0.00) 1 (0.38) 0 (0.00) 1 351.90** 0.22
risk. (24.44) (12.41) (62.41) (0.38)
17. Vendors should not touch the money during food producing 6 (2.26) 26 (9.77) 205 18 (6.77) 8 (3.01) 2 (0.75) 1 869.00** 0.54
or distribution. (77.07) (0.38)
18. Product should not be used after expiry date in labels. 99 15 (5.64) 151 1 (0.38) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0) 227.65** 0.14
(37.22) (56.77)
**
Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), *Significant at 1% (p < 0.05), χ 2 ¼ Chi square value, N¼Frequencies, % ¼ Percentages, SA ¼ Strongly Agree, MA ¼ Moderately Agree,
PA ¼ Partially Agree, PD ¼ Partially Disagree, MD ¼ Moderately Disagree, SD ¼ Strongly Disagree, NL ¼ Neutral.

“>75” by an individual respondent was considered as having “Low”, reliability [20]. The results of the piloted survey were not comprised in
“Medium” and “Acceptable” level of knowledge and practices on food this final study.
hygiene respectively [12]. On the other hand, in case of attitudes section,
the SFVs having the score of “< 67”, “67%–83%” and “>83%” indicated 3.2. Statistical analysis
that “Low”, “Medium” and “Acceptable” level of attitudes respectively.
This scale was considered, because the highest score (%) for the response The data achieved from the survey were inputted and arranged
of “Partially Agree” and “Moderately Agree” to all attitude's questions accordingly into a spread sheet of Microsoft Excel-2019 and subsequently
was about 67% and 83% respectively. The score (%), for the agreement transferred into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version
(“Partially Agree” þ “Moderately Agree”) was considered as “Medium” 25.0 for further analysis. Descriptive statistics was applied to calculate
level of attitudes and for the agreement (“Strongly agree”) was consid- the frequencies, percentages, mean, standard deviation, KAP scores,
ered as “Acceptable” level of attitudes. maximum and minimum values for each socio-demographic variable of
the respondent's and presented in tables. Pearson's chi-squared test was
3.1. Validity and reliability of questionnaire used to test the association between categorical variable. Particularly,
when more than 20% cells had expected count less than 5, the p value of
Prior to conduct the final study, a pilot study was performed among a fisher exact tests was accounted. Additionally, Independent samples t-
randomly-selected small group of SFVs (n ¼ 25) to determine the fitness testing was conducted to compare the mean of KAP score of two com-
of the questionnaire. The internal consistency reliability for the SFVs munity variables such as gender, TFSH and TFPP. On the other hand, the
knowledge, attitudes and practices is judged based on the average inter- one-way ANOVA was considered, followed by Tukey's test, to compare
item correlation (AIC) analysis and calculating Cronbach's alpha. The AIC the mean of KAP scores for demographic variable having more than two
was 0.14 (0.54 to 0.74), 0.38 (0.13 to 0.74) and 0.12 (0.504 to 0.65) category level such as age, marital and educational status, experience and
for knowledge, attitudes and practices sections. The internal consistency monthly income. Finally, the Pearson correlation test (r) was performed
(Cronbach's alpha) was 0.762, 0.914 and 0.724 for knowledge, attitudes to ascertain the strength of the correlations within the KAP scores and
and practices sections of the questionnaire, indicating acceptable also Spearman's rank correlation between the KAP scores and

5
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

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 0.230z 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 0.057z 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 0.012z 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 ¼ Fisher exact tests, Pr ¼ Pearson's Chi-square test, z ¼ Independent sample T test, ¥ ¼ One way
ANOVA, p ¼ Probability value, χ 2 ¼ Chi square value, p < 0.05 ¼ 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 ¼ 1% level of significance, N¼Frequencies, % ¼ Percentages, BDT ¼
Bangladeshi Taka, K¼ Thousand, TFSH ¼ Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP ¼ Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

demographic variables. The strength of the correlations was classified as variation on the basis of the possible response. The majority of SFVs in
followed by another research [18]. However, before performing the this study had the knowledge on maintaining the personal hygiene
statistical test, all certain assumption for specific test was performed and (95.11%), washing hands regularly before and after the work (91.35%).
none of them violated the statement. The results with p-values of less On the other hand, the majority portion did not response to the question
than 0.05 were counted statistically significant. regarding to Hepatitis A virus is a food borne pathogens (81.95%),
microbes in the skin/nose/mouth of SFVs (76.69%) and lastly trans-
4. Results mission of typhoid fever by contaminated food (65.79%). SFVs did not
response to the question indicating that they had no knowledge on such
4.1. Demographic characteristics of food vendors statements. A good number of vendors knew that the dirt can
contaminate the food (84.59%), so covering of food can improve the
The demographic characteristics of SFVs is presented in Table 1 hygiene (88.35%). Additionally, majority portion of SFVs had the
which shows that all the variables having different levels had the sta- knowledge that the proper cleaning and sanitization of utensils
tistically significant variation. Among the 266 vendors, the majority (82.71%) especially with detergent eliminate the contamination
proportion were male (92.86%), age between 35 to 44 years (34.21%), (80.08%) because pathogenic microorganism can transmit through
married (83.83%), had the primary level of education (46.99%), had the food (84.59%). Unexpectedly, about one-third of the vendors only
experience of 5–9 years (32.71%), and their (35.71%) monthly family knew that exchanging of money by hand is a source of contamination.
income was <10000 Taka. Additionally, most of them (93.61%) had no Interestingly, 78.20% of SFVs had idea that washing of hands with only
any training on food safety and hygiene, and also had no any training on water can't clean enough and 73.68% of SFVs had idea that re-selling of
food preparation and preservation (89.47%). Particularly, the variable leftover food is not safe respectively.
gender and training on food safety-security had the higher variation Table 3. Shows the food safety knowledge score of SFVs. Most of the
indicated by the effect size of 0.734 and 0.761 respectively. 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
4.2. Food safety knowledge of street food vendors (SFVs) 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 respec-
As is presented in Table 2, the knowledge question on food safety tively. In this study, all the categorical level of demographic variables had
and hygiene, where all the questions had the significant (p < 0.01) no significant influence on the food safety knowledge level. Additionally,

6
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

Table 6 (continued )
Table 6. Food safety practices responses of street food vendors.
[Link]. Statements Response N (%) χ 2 Value Effect
[Link]. Statements Response N (%) χ 2 Value Effect Size
All- Occasional Never
Size
All- Occasional Never time
time 21. Vending stalls 137 50 (18.80) 79 44.26** 0.08
1. Vendors 191 8 (3.01) 67 196.79** 0.37 are maintained (51.50) (29.70)
handled money (71.80) (25.19) in clean
while serving conditions
food **
Significant at 1% (p < 0.01), *Significant at 1% (p < 0.05), χ 2 ¼ Chi square
2. Wearing the 71 120 75 16.70** 0.03 value, N¼Frequencies, % ¼ Percentages.
jewelleries and (26.69) (45.11) (28.20)
watch while
working
3. Vendors smoked 6 (2.26) 177 83 165.44** 0.31 the mean knowledge score had no significant differences between the
while handling (66.54) (31.20) levels of different demographic variables. However, the SFVs of <18
food years aged (50%) and who had the bachelor level of education (50%)
4. Eating or 52 44 (16.54) 170 112.27** 0.21 achieved the highest knowledge score
75.
drinking is (19.55) (63.91)
common while
working. 4.3. Food safety attitudes of street food vendors (SFVs)
5. Handling foods 18 191 57 185.74** 0.35
while suffering (6.77) (71.80) (21.43) As is presented in Table 4, the attitudes of street food vendors where
in diarrhoea
all the statements differ in terms of their response category. The effect of
6. Nails are long 135 21 (7.89) 110 80.99** 0.15
response in the all-attitudes statements were not high, indicated by the
and remain all (50.75) (41.35)
adornments effect size less than 0.8 for all attitude's statements. Among the response
7. Oil is reused 103 67 (25.19) 96 8.22** 0.02 of “strongly agree”, the highest proportion of SFVs were 43.61% for the
frequently. (38.72) (36.09) statement regarding that the food should be in covering and providing
8. Food is 152 80 (30.08) 34 79.79** 0.15 the safe food is an important part of SFVs job responsibility. Particularly,
prepared in (57.14) (12.78) the highest proportion of SFVs (84.21%) were partially agreed with the
open place foodborne illnesses having the economic effects on the society. Addi-
9. Vendor uses 215 20 (7.52) 31 270.68** 0.51 tionally, the SFVs of 77.07% were also partially agree with the proper
same utensils to (80.83) (11.65)
boiling temperature should maintain and SFVs should not touch the
serve/prepare
food. money during food producing or distribution. But among all the state-
10. Rubbing hands 45 46 (17.29) 175 126.10** 0.24
ment responding to strongly disagree, the highest was 0.75% regarding
on face, hair, (16.92) (65.79) that SFVs should not touch the money during food producing or distri-
etc. while bution. In the response of partially disagree, the highest proportion of
working. SFVs were 25.56% responded that the uses of paper/polythene packs for
11. Use of apron/ 31 205 30 228.96** 0.43 food packaging are not safe. Surprisingly, very few portions of SFVs were
mask/cap/ (11.65) (77.07) (11.28)
strongly disagreed with the different food safety attitude's statements.
gloves at work
daily The highest among the all-attitudes statement of neutral response, 0.75%
12. Washing hands 151 22 (8.27) 93 94.16** 0.18
SFVs was for the statement using gloves, mask, cap and apron to reduce
before (56.77) (34.96) the risk of foodborne illness.
processing food As Table 5 shows, the highest proportion of SFVs (70.3%) showed the
13. Washing of 188 18 (6.77) 60 176.87** 0.33 medium level of attitude having the score from
67 to <83. Their atti-
hands by soap (70.68) (22.56) tudes score mean was 73.89  7.37 where the minimum and maximum
after using toilet
score was 57.41 and 94.44 respectively. Interestingly, the 100% of SFVs
14. Utensils cleaned 142 33 (12.41) 91 67.09** 0.13
who had the bachelor level of education showed the medium level of
every time after (53.38) (34.21)
usage
attitude. In considering the mean score of attitudes, the educational
15. Utensils were 109 71 (26.69) 86 8.26** 0.02
status and training on food preparation-preservation of the SFVs had the
remained in (40.98) (32.33) significant differences among the different level. The mean attitudes
covering. score was significantly higher in SFVs having the bachelor level of edu-
16. Use detergent to 112 36 (13.53) 118 47.13** 0.09 cation (93.98  0.65) than who had the other level of education. Simi-
clean the (42.11) (44.36) larly, the SFVs having the training on food preparation-preservation
utensils. (77.18  8.30) had significantly higher mean attitudes score than the
17. Food stored or 98 118 50 27.55** 0.05 SFVs had no training.
displayed in (36.84) (44.36) (18.80)
sealed
containers. 4.4. Food safety practices by street food vendors (SFVs)
18. Safe water is 213 12 (4.51) 41 266.26** 0.50
used for making (80.08) (15.41)
The data presented in Table 6, indicates the food safety practices of
food and
drinking SFVs. All the practice statements were significantly different in consid-
19. Raw and cooked 186 35 (13.16) 45 160.84** 0.30
ering the three-category response. The effect size of all statement
food items are (69.92) (16.92) regarding the SFVs practice were less than 0.8 indicating that the
stored response had no any high effect. The SFVs (80.83%) reported that they
separately always used same utensils to serve/prepare food. Additionally, 71.80%
20. Using soaps/ 93 46 (17.29) 127 37.32** 0.07 SFVs always touched the money during serving or preparing the foods.
detergents to (34.96) (47.74)
However, 80.08% SFVs always used safe water for making food and
wash hands
drinking purpose. Among the occasionally practices, 77.07% SFVs used
(continued on next page)

7
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

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 0.279z 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 0.016z 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 0.017z 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 ¼ Fisher exact tests, Pr ¼ Pearson's Chi-square test, z ¼ Independent sample T test, ¥ ¼ One way
ANOVA, p ¼ Probability value, χ 2 ¼ Chi square value, p < 0.05 ¼ 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 ¼ 1% level of significance, N¼Frequencies, % ¼ Percentages, BDT ¼
Bangladeshi Taka, K¼ Thousand, TFSH ¼ Training on Food Safety-Hygiene, TFPP ¼ Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

apron/mask/cap/gloves at work, 71.80% SFVs handled foods while 4.5. Correlation analysis
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, Figure 2 shows the Spearman's correlation between the different
hair, etc. while working and 63.91% SFVs never eat or drink during the socio-demographic variables and KAP scores on food safety of street food
working. vendors. The knowledge score of SFVs food safety had a significantly (p <
The impression of socio-demographic variable on food safety prac- 0.01) positive low strength correlation with the monthly income (rs ¼
tices score rating of the SFVs are presented in Table 7. Among the three- 0.218) of SFVs. Similarly, the attitudes score had the significantly (p <
practice score rating (“low”, “medium” and “acceptable”), the highest 0.05) positive low strength correlation with the training on food safety-
proportion of SFVs (47.7%) was practicing in the medium level. The SFVs hygiene (rs ¼ 0.121) and training on food preparation-preservation (rs
practice score level was significantly associated with their educational ¼ 0.154). The food safety practices score exhibited the positive low
status. The 50% of the SFVs who achieved the bachelor education had the strength correlation with the educational status (rs ¼ 0.17, p < 0.01),
acceptable score and the rest 50% had the medium score on practices monthly income (rs ¼ 0.147, p < 0.05), training on food safety-hygiene
toward the food safety. After that the highest proportion of SFVs (73.3%) (rs ¼ 0.152, p < 0.05) and training on food preparation-preservation (rs ¼
of HSC level of education were practicing in medium level towards the 0.151, p < 0.05). Though the genders of SFVs had the positive low
food safety. Majority of the illiterate SFVs (57.4%) also had the low level strength correlation with the monthly income (rs ¼ 0.142, p < 0.05) and
of practice score. The SFVs had the practice score mean of 55.37  15.08 educational status (rs ¼ 0.131, p < 0.05), but had the low strength
towards the food safety. The mean practice score was significantly dif- negative correlation with the age of the SFVs (rs ¼ -0.124, p < 0.05). The
ference for the demographic variable of educational status, TFSH and correlation results of demographic variables age of the SFVs, had the low
TFPP. In case of educational status, the highest mean was in SFVs of strength negative correlation with the educational status (rs ¼ 0.257, p
bachelor education amounting 67.86  21.88. The SFVs who had the < 0.01), training on food safety-hygiene (rs ¼ 0.167, p < 0.01) and
TFSH and TFPP showed the considerably higher mean of practice score, training on food preparation-preservation (rs ¼ 0.177, p < 0.01), and
63.86  13.71 and 61.99  14.65 respectively. The minimum and the negative but moderate correlation was with marital status (rs ¼
maximum practice score towards the food safety achieved by any indi- 0.433, p < 0.01) of SFVs. Moreover, the age of the SFVs was positively
vidual SFVs were 16.67and 90.48 respectively. correlated with experience on food vending (rs ¼ 0.528, p < 0.01) having

8
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

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 ¼ Score on Knowledge, SA ¼ Score on Attitudes, SP ¼ Score on Practices, GSFV ¼ Gender of Street Food Vendors, ASFV ¼ Age
of Street Food Vendors, MS ¼ Marital Status, ES ¼ Educational Status, EFV ¼ Experience on Food Vending, MI ¼ Monthly Income, TFSH ¼ Training on Food Safety-
Hygiene, TFPP ¼ Training on Food Preparation-Preservation.

the substantial strength. On the other hand, the marital status negatively were married because of this, higher proportion of adult aged persons
correlated with experience on vending (rs ¼ 0.289, p < 0.01). Educa- were SFVs. Similar report was also in Bangladesh where 86.5% Chotpoti
tional status was low strength positively correlated training on food vendors were married [14]. The most of the SFVs had just primary level
safety-hygiene (rs ¼ 0.209, p < 0.01) and training on food preparation- of education and experience about 5–9 years. This might be due to most
preservation (rs ¼ 0.267, p < 0.01). Surprisingly, the training on food of the SFVs are early school leavers. Anyway, the same trends also
safety-hygiene was strong positively correlated with training on food observed by the other author Ferdaus et al. (2020) [12]. A greater
preparation-preservation (rs ¼ 0.762, p < 0.01). number of SFVs reported that they had no any training on food safety,
The results of Pearson's correlation within the KAP score were potted in hygiene even so on food preparation and preservation. Similar cases also
Figure 3A, B, and C. The scattered plots demonstrate the distribution of KAP reported in other country, as one study in Ghana, found that only 8.1%
score and expressing the correlation and linear equation among the SFVs received the training. Although training and education may
knowledge, attitudes and practice scores. In where, the knowledge score had contribute to advancement the food safety and hygiene knowledge of the
a positively moderate strength of correlation with attitudes score (r ¼ 0.342, SFVs reflected on perpetual changes in practices and attitudes [24]. In
p < 0.01) and practice score (r ¼ 0.389, P < 0.01) having the regression this study, majority proportion of SFVs had the knowledge on personal
equation, y ¼ 0.25*x þ 56.12 (Figure 3A) and y ¼ 0.57*x þ 14.01 respec- hygiene and regular hand washing. The personal hygiene knowledge is
tively (Figure 3B). Besides, a significantly (p < 0.01) positive correlation of important to minimize the spread of foodborne diseases [25] and also
medium strength was observed between the attitudes and practice score (r ¼ proper knowledge on handwashing can decrease the incidence of diar-
0.328) with the regression equation, y ¼ 0.67*x þ 5.81 (Figure 3C) indi- rhea. However, higher number of SFVs had the knowledge score between
cating the practice score will increase when the attitudes score will be raised.
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
5. Discussion 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
The present findings revealed that, the SFVs had the comparatively score was near to the study reported by Ferdaus et al. (2020) [12], which
higher knowledge and attitudes score than the practice score during this was comparably higher than SFVs mean knowledge score in Malaysia
COVID 19 situation in Bangladesh. In our study the majority SFVs were [26] and Turkey [27]. Particularly, the SFVs having the bachelor's level
male. This finding is in accordance with other reports where majority of education had the higher knowledge score. This finding was, because
the SFVs in Bangladesh were male [12, 13]. In other countries, higher SFVs with a higher educational status trend to have higher knowledge on
proportion of females were involved in street food vending [1, 18, 21], food safety than those who are less educated [12]. However, there were
these might be due to women mostly work in the sectors connected with no significant differences in the SFVs level of knowledge score about food
the domestic employment, for instance the processing and preparation of safety with regards to their demographic characteristics. These findings
food [22]. But in Bangladesh, the fewer proportion of women are are in line with the previous studies in Bangladesh [12]. The SFVs atti-
involved in food sales because mostly they engage in the household ac- tudes score was indicating they have a satisfactory level of concept about
tivity and play the maternal roles [23]. Among the age range, highest food safety in their mind. This is in line with previous reports, such as one
proportion of the SFVs were 35–44 years of age. Though this result in Haiti [28]. Interestingly, all SFVs of bachelor level education were
discord the findings of Mamun et al. (2020) [13], who found majority bearing the good level of attitudes. This observation indicates that there
SFVs age were from 18 to 25 years. But our findings has the little bit of is a strong linkage between attitudes and educational status of SFVs,
similarities to studies in Ghana [21]. This might be due to age and the ultimately initiate the safe food handling practices [29]. Moreover, the
socio-economic conditions of the SFVs of a certain area. Most of the SFVs food safety attitudes of SFVs are greatly influenced by the training [30].

9
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

The result of Spearman (rs) 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 Vitoria 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]. Interest-
ingly, 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, specif-
ically 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 ques-
tionnaire. Lastly, the food habit is unlike in different area, for this the
result may had a little bit of fluctuation than other studies.

Figure 3. Scatter diagrams showing the Pearson linear correlations of (A) Declarations
Knowledge Score with Attitudes Score, (B) Knowledge Score with Practices
Score, and (C) Attitudes Score with Practices Score of street food vendors. p < Author contribution statement
0.05 ¼ 5% level of significance, p < 0.01 ¼ 1% level of significance.
Mirza Mienur Meher: Conceived and designed the experiments; Per-
Though the majority portion of SFVs were partially agree with that they formed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed
should not touch the money during the vending, but they should have the reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
attitude of strongly agree with this statement. Because money is one of Marya Afrin: Performed the experiments; Contributed reagents, ma-
the most frequent source for microbial transmission [31]. Results ob- terials, analysis tools or data.
tained through the KAP questionnaire indicated that the lowest mean Anup Kumar Talukder, Md. Golam Haider: Contributed reagents,
scores were found on the practice section. A similar result was found in materials, analysis tools or data.
studies by Ferdaus et al. (2020) [12]. Furthermore, the self-reported food
safety and hygiene practice shows that good number of SFVs occasion- Funding statement
ally, smoked while vending, touched the food while suffering in diar-
rhoea and didn't wear any personal protective equipment. The lacking of This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies
proper knowledge on food safety may one of the potential reasons of their in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
irregular for personal hygiene practice [21]. The practice score of SFVs
was significantly associated with the educational status and training. Data availability statement
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. Data will be made available on request.

10
M.M. Meher et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e12166

Declaration of interest’s statement [14] M.Z. Hassan, M.S. Islam, M. Salauddin, A.H.A. Zafr, S. Alam, Food safety
knowledge, attitudes and practices of Chotpoti vendors in dhaka, Bangladesh,
J. Enam Med. Coll. 7 (2017) 69–76.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. [15] M. Ansari-Lari, S. Soodbakhsh, L. Lakzadeh, Knowledge, attitudes and practices of
workers on food hygienic practices in meat processing plants in Fars, Iran, Food
Additional information Control 21 (2010) 260–263.
[16] D. Roy, S. Tripathy, S.K. Kar, N. Sharma, S.K. Verma, V. Kaushal, Study of
knowledge, attitude, anxiety & perceived mental healthcare need in Indian
No additional information is available for this paper. population during COVID-19 pandemic, Asian J. Psychiatr. 51 (2020), 102083.
[17] W.W. Daniel, Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences,
seventh ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 1999.
Acknowledgements [18] da A.G. Vitoria, J. de Souza Couto Oliveira, L.C. de Almeida Pereira, C.P. de Faria,
J.F.B. de S~ao Jose, Food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers:
The authors would like to acknowledge the student of DVM 4th year, a cross-sectional study in school kitchens in Espírito Santo, Brazil, BMC Publ. Health
21 (2021) 349.
Summer Term-2020 (Batch: 2017) of BSMRAU for their cordial support [19] L. Sharif, T. Al-Malki, Knowledge, attitude and practice of Taif University students
in data collection from the street food vendors. on food poisoning, Food Control 21 (2010) 55–60.
[20] K.S. Taber, The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research
instruments in science education, Res. Sci. Educ. 48 (2018) 1273–1296.
References [21] F. Akabanda, E.H. Hlortsi, J. Owusu-Kwarteng, Food safety knowledge, attitudes
and practices of institutional food-handlers in Ghana, BMC Publ. Health 17 (2017)
[1] L. Ma, H. Chen, H. Yan, L. Wu, W. Zhang, Food safety knowledge, attitudes, and 1–9.
behavior of street food vendors and consumers in Handan, a third tier city in China, [22] M.C.A. Bruschini, Trabalho e g^enero no Brasil nos últimos dez anos, Cadernos
BMC Publ. Health 19 (2019) 1128. Pesquisa 37 (2007) 537–572.
[2] D. Tambekar, V. Jaiswal, D. Dhanorkar, P. Gulhane, M. Dudhane, Identification of [23] M. Md. Asaduzzaman, R. Kabir, M. Radovic-Markovic, Gender inequality in
microbiological hazards and safety of ready-to-eat food vendee in streets of Bangladesh, J. Women’s Entrep. Educ. 3 (2015) 54–64. [Link]
Amravati city India, J. Appl. Biosci 7 (2008) 195–201. .[Link]/[Link]/jwee/article/view/224 (accessed 12 April , 2021).
[3] A.M. Vollaard, Risk factors for typhoid and paratyphoid fever in Jakarta, Indonesia, [24] P. Seaman, Food hygiene training: introducing the food hygiene training model,
JAMA 291 (2004) 2607. Food Control 21 (2010) 381–387.
[4] J.E. Fielding, A. Aguirre, E. Palaiologos, Effectiveness of altered incentives in a food ~ microbiology in health and disease: foods as vectors
[25] R. Fuerst, Frobisher, FuerstOs,
safety inspection program, Prev. Med. 32 (2001) 239–244. of microbial disease, in: Sanit. Food Handl., fifteenth ed., 1983, pp. 418–433.
[5] M.M. Zain, N.N. Naing, Sociodemographic characteristics of food handlers and their [26] P.S. Toh, A. Birchenough, Food safety knowledge and attitudes: culture and
knowledge, attitude and practice towards food sanitation: a preliminary report, environment impact on hawkers in Malaysia, Food Control 11 (2000) 447–452.
Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Publ. Health 33 (2002) 410–417. [Link] [27] M. Bas, A. Safak Ersun, G. Kivanc, The evaluation of food hygiene knowledge,
[Link]/pubmed/12236444. attitudes, and practices of food handlers’ in food businesses in Turkey, Food Control
[6] G.A. Annor, E.A. Baiden, Evaluation of food hygiene knowledge attitudes and 17 (2006) 317–322.
practices of food handlers in food businesses in accra, Ghana, Food Nutr. Sci. 2 [28] S. Samapundo, R. Climat, R. Xhaferi, F. Devlieghere, Food safety knowledge,
(2011) 830–836. attitudes and practices of street food vendors and consumers in Port-au-Prince,
[7] D. Muleta, M. Ashenafi, Salmonella, Shigella and growth potential of other food- Haiti, Food Control 50 (2015) 457–466.
borne pathogens in Ethiopian street vended foods, East Afr. Med. J. 78 (2001). [29] M. Howes, S. McEwen, M. Griffiths, L. Harris, Food handler certification by home
[8] D.O. Cliver, M. Potter, H.P. Riemann, Foodborne infections: bacterial, in: study: measuring changes in knowledge and behavior, Dairy, Food Environ. Sanit.
G.J. Morris, M.J. Potter (Eds.), Foodborne Infect. Intox., first ed., Academic Press, 16 (1996) 737–744.
London, 2011, pp. 66–78. [30] F. Ncube, A. Kanda, M. Chijokwe, G. Mabaya, T. Nyamugure, Food safety
[9] S.R. Patil, S. Cates, R. Morales, Consumer food safety knowledge, practices, and knowledge, attitudes and practices of restaurant food handlers in a lower-middle-
demographic differences: findings from a meta-analysis, J. Food Protect. 68 (2005) income country, Food Sci. Nutr. 8 (2020) 1677–1687.
1884–1894. [31] H. Gedik, T.A. Voss, A. Voss, Money and transmission of bacteria, Antimicrob.
[10] B. Nicolas, A. Bello, S. Aly, O.C.T. Amadou, A. Ilboudo, T.S. Alfred, Hygienic status Resist. Infect. Control 2 (2013) 22.
assessment of dish washing waters, utensils, hands and pieces of money from street food [32] D.T. da Cunha, V.V. de Rosso, M.B. Pereira, E. Stedefeldt, The differences between
processing sites inOuagadougou(Burkina Faso), Afr. J. Biotechnol.5 (2006)1107–1112. observed and self-reported food safety practices: a study with food handlers using
[11] J.F.R. Lues, M.R. Rasephei, P. Venter, M.M. Theron, Assessing food safety and structural equation modeling, Food Res. Int. 125 (2019), 108637.
associated food handling practices in street food vending, Int. J. Environ. Health [33] M. Adane, B. Teka, Y. Gismu, G. Halefom, M. Ademe, Food hygiene and safety
Res. 16 (2006) 319–328. measures among food handlers in street food shops and food establishments of
[12] M.J. Ferdaus, M.M. Hasan, N.N. Lina, A.K. Das, S.K. Barman, D.K. Paul, R.K. Roy, Dessie town, Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study, PLoS One 13
Food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of street food vendors in Jashore (2018), e0196919.
region, Bangladesh, Food Sci. Technol. (2020) 1–14. [34] N.A. Al-Shabib, S.H. Mosilhey, F.M. Husain, Cross-sectional study on food safety
[13] S. Mamun, S. Alam, M.A. Zaher, A.O. Huq, Food safety knowledge, attitudes and knowledge, attitude and practices of male food handlers employed in restaurants of
behavior of street food vendors and consumers in dhaka city, Bangladesh, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, Food Control 59 (2016) 212–217.
J. Microbiol. 37 (2020) 48–51.

11