investigating riyadh’s public health inspectors' … abdullah r_alsaleh_thesis.pdfmar 20,...
TRANSCRIPT
INVESTIGATING RIYADH’S PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTORS' ABILITY TO CONDUCT RISK-BASED FOOD
INSPECTION, AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL NEEDS
A Mixed-Methods Research Study
Sultan Abdullah Alsaleh
BPubHlth-HP, MPH
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Public Health and Social Work Faculty of Health
Queensland University of Technology 2021
Page | ii
ا ا الله
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Page | iii
Keywords
Environmental Health Officer (EHO), food safety, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
foodborne illness (FBI), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), Knowledge-to-
action framework (KTA), Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Public Health Inspector
(PHI), risk-based food inspection, Saudi Arabia, traditional food inspection.
Page | iv
Abstract
Background
Every year about 600 million –—almost 1 in 10 people in the world –—fall ill after
eating unsafe food, and more than 400,000 people die. Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) perform
important roles and have numerous responsibilities in efficiently protecting public health from
foodborne illnesses (FBIs). Some of these roles and responsibilities include undertaking food
safety assessments, enforcing local food safety legislation, and providing support to food
establishments (i.e., restaurants) regarding the minimization of food safety risks. The processes
of qualifying and training PHIs, and ensuring timely addressing of their professional needs are
essential for the successful and safe development of the food industry in any country. At the
same time, there is a significant knowledge gap in the food safety area in the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) countries, including Saudi Arabia, which is related to the lack of a detailed
understanding of the major issues preventing, or interfering with, the implementation and
improvement of a food safety inspection approach.
Purpose
There are two key approaches towards food safety inspection at the food establishments
across the globe —the traditional approach and the risk-based (modern) approach. The
traditional approach typically focuses on reactive measures towards problems once they have
been identified. In contrast, the risk-based approach recommended for adoption by the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has a more proactive character,
whereby it attempts to identify and address food safety issues before they actually become a
public threat. The transition of Saudi Arabia to the risk-based food safety approach raises
important questions about the professional needs of the Saudi PHI workforce for and during
such a transition. Therefore, guided by the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework, the aim
Page | v
of this Thesis was to identify the knowledge and skills needs of the PHIs in Riyadh to conduct
risk-based food inspections, including any barriers and factors that may influence the
effectiveness of the inspection process.
Methods
This research was conducted in two phases using both qualitative (phase 1) and
quantitative (phase 2) methods and utilising a sequential exploratory design. In the first phase,
seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with four PHIs, two senior Environmental
Health Mangers (EHMs) and the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma. The reason for the
inclusion of the EHMs and the Coordinator in phase 1 was to obtain different perspectives.
Then, the information gathered from these interviews and the knowledge and skills framework
of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), were used to inform the development of the
survey in the second phase. A survey was deemed to be a best fit in the current study to capture
a large cohort of PHIs’ perceptions. A total of 502 PHIs were invited to participate in phase 2
and 301 completed and submitted it, resulting in a 60% response rate.
Findings
Results revealed that the levels of formal qualification of PHIs in Riyadh are
significantly lower than in other developed and developing countries. Female PHIs typically
have lower levels of knowledge and skills compared to their male counterparts. In addition,
according to the conducted qualitative (Phase 1) and quantitative (Phase 2) investigations, the
majority of participants demonstrated only limited levels of understanding and knowledge
about Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) principles, food sampling
techniques, food microbiology and the English language as a communication tool with
restaurant staff.
Page | vi
Leading towards the anticipated transition to risk-based food inspections in Saudi
Arabia, special attention was focused on the professional needs of PHIs and issues that
influence their performance, including on-going professional training. In particular,
deficiencies in regular training and in the overall training arrangements to PHIs were also
demonstrated by the current study. Additionally, lack of job satisfaction was another major
finding of the study, with the highest levels of dissatisfaction being expressed with regard to
motivation at the workplace, and the lack of support and security provided by the management.
It was also found that a large proportion of PHIs in Riyadh regarded the existing food safety
laws and regulations are generally inadequate and not sufficiently clear. These were the issues
constituting the greatest perceived obstacles for the effective performance of PHIs and an
effective transition toward the risk-based inspection approach in Riyadh. In addition, the
obtained outcomes could also be generalised to other regions of Saudi Arabia and possibly,
other GCC countries.
Page | vii
Table of Contents
Keywords ................................................................................................................................................ iii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... xii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... xiii
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... xv
Statement of Original Authorship......................................................................................................... xvi
Dedication ............................................................................................................................................ xvii
Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................................ xviii
Conference Participation ....................................................................................................................... xx
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1. Food Safety Inspection in Saudi Arabia ................................................................................. 4
1.1.2. Contextual Factors ................................................................................................................. 5
1.2. Context.. ........................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3. Scope…… ....................................................................................................................................... 7
1.4. Research Questions ....................................................................................................................10
1.4.1. Primary Question .................................................................................................................10
1.4.2. Secondary Questions ...........................................................................................................10
1.5. Aims and Objectives ...................................................................................................................11
1.6. Methodology ..............................................................................................................................12
1.7. Thesis Document Outline ...........................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................................15
2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................15
2.2. Food Borne Illnesses (FBIs) .........................................................................................................16
2.3. Food Safety Inspection and Inspectors Role ..............................................................................19
2.4. Practice Competencies by Country .............................................................................................23
United Kingdom .............................................................................................................................23
United States .................................................................................................................................25
Australia .........................................................................................................................................27
Canada ...........................................................................................................................................29
Page | viii
2.5. Qualification by Country .............................................................................................................31
United Kingdom .............................................................................................................................32
United States .................................................................................................................................32
Australia .........................................................................................................................................33
Canada ...........................................................................................................................................33
Saudi Arabia ...................................................................................................................................33
2.6. Traditional (Classic) Vs. Risk-based (Modern) Food Inspection .................................................34
2.7. The FAO and KTA Frameworks ...................................................................................................37
2.7.2. Knowledge and Skills Framework: FAO Risk-based Inspection Manual ..............................38
2.7.3. Knowledge Translation Framework: Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) .......................................43
2.8. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................49
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................49
3.2. Research Design ..........................................................................................................................50
3.3. Mixed Methods and Sequence Priority ......................................................................................52
3.4. Choice of the Study Design .........................................................................................................56
3.5. Integration ..................................................................................................................................58
3.6. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................59
3.7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................61
CHAPTER 4: STUDY ONE – SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ................................................................62
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................62
4.2. Methods of Phase 1 ....................................................................................................................63
Development of the Interview Questions .....................................................................................63
Double Translation Method...........................................................................................................65
Recruitment and Eligibility Criteria ................................................................................................68
Sampling ........................................................................................................................................69
Semi-Structured Interviews ...........................................................................................................71
Ethical Consideration .....................................................................................................................73
Data Analyses .................................................................................................................................73
Trustworthiness .............................................................................................................................75
4.3. Findings and Interpretation ........................................................................................................77
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................77
Participant Descriptions .................................................................................................................79
Emerging Themes ..........................................................................................................................81
Page | ix
Interpretation ................................................................................................................................82
4.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................107
CHAPTER 5: STUDY TWO – CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY ......................................................................111
5.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................111
5.2. Methods of Phase 2 ..................................................................................................................112
Description of the Study Design ..................................................................................................112
Survey Development....................................................................................................................113
Double Translation Method.........................................................................................................115
Piloting the Survey .......................................................................................................................115
Eligibility Criteria ..........................................................................................................................117
Recruitment Strategies ................................................................................................................118
Administration of the Survey Using Key Survey ..........................................................................119
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................120
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................120
5.3. Results…. ...................................................................................................................................123
5.3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................123
5.3.2. Demographics ....................................................................................................................123
5.3.3. Knowledge and Skills .........................................................................................................129
5.3.4. Training and Professional Development ...........................................................................134
5.3.5. Challenges and Obstacles ..................................................................................................146
5.3.6. Education and Qualification ..............................................................................................154
5.4. Further Association Between the Variables .............................................................................156
5.4.1. Correlation Between Skill and Knowledge in Nine Areas ..................................................156
5.4.2. Association Between Gender, Education, Years of Experience and Municipality and Skills and Knowledge ............................................................................................................................158
5.4.3. Association Between Motivation and Gender, Education, Years of Experience and Municipality .................................................................................................................................161
5.4.5. Association Between Gender and Municipality and Association Between Subjective Feeling About Preparedness for Inspector Job and Education Level ..........................................165
5.5. DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................................167
5.5.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................167
5.5.2. Demographics ....................................................................................................................167
5.5.3. Knowledge and Skills .........................................................................................................169
General Comments About Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................169
Demographics and Knowledge and Skills ....................................................................................171
Page | x
Food Safety Laws and Regulations ..............................................................................................172
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) ....................................................................174
Inspection Techniques, Using Devices and Sampling ..................................................................175
Sanitation and Hygiene, Food Microbiology and Pest Control....................................................176
Communication and English Language Skills ...............................................................................178
Scientific Research .......................................................................................................................179
5.5.4. Training and Professional Development ...........................................................................180
5.5.5. Challenges and Obstacles ..................................................................................................183
5.5.6. Education and Qualification ..............................................................................................184
5.5.7. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................185
CHAPTER 6: INTEGRATIONS .................................................................................................................186
6.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................186
6.2. Knowledge and Skills ................................................................................................................187
6.2.1. Laws and Regulations ........................................................................................................187
6.2.2. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) ..........................................................189
6.2.3. Communication Skills .........................................................................................................192
6.3. Training and Professional Development ..................................................................................194
6.4. Education and Qualification .....................................................................................................195
6.5. Challenges and Obstacles .........................................................................................................197
6.6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................201
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................203
7.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................203
7.2. Significance and Strengths of the Study ...................................................................................205
7.3. Methodological Aspects of the Study .......................................................................................208
7.4. Major Findings and Actionable Recommendations..................................................................209
7.4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................209
7.4.2. The Following Summarises 23 Major Findings: .................................................................210
7.4.3. Recommendations and Actionable Strategies Based on the Major Findings ...................215
7.5. Study Limitations ......................................................................................................................219
7.6. Future Research ........................................................................................................................222
7.7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................223
References ...........................................................................................................................................225
Appendices ..........................................................................................................................................245
Appendix A Ethical Approval- Queensland University of Technology ...........................................245
Page | xi
Appendix B Data Collection Approval- Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Saudi Arabia ....246
Appendix C Data Collection Approval – Saudi Arabia Cultural Mission, Australia ........................247
Appendix D Data Collection Confirmation – Environmental Health Department, Riyadh Main Municipality, Saudi Arabia .........................................................................................248
Appendix E Course Coordinator Interview Approval, Technical and Vocational Training Corporation is a training institute, Saudi Arabia ........................................................249
Appendix F Participants Invitation Message - English ..................................................................250
Appendix G Participants Invitation – Arabic ..................................................................................251
Appendix H Participants Information Sheet – Arabic ....................................................................252
Appendix I Interview Document - Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) ..............................................253
Appendix J Interview Document – Environmental Health Manager (EHMs) ..............................258
Appendix K Interview Document for the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma at the Technical College of Riyadh .......................................................................................262
Appendix L Survey Questionnaire – English Language .................................................................266
Appendix M Survey Questionnaire – Arabic Language ..................................................................275
Appendix N Major Themes – Map .................................................................................................286
Page | xii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The main determinants of health (Dahlgren & Whitehead, 1991) ........................................ 2
Figure 1.2 Authorities involved in food safety in Saudi Arabia .............................................................. 4
Figure 1.3 Map of Saudi Arabia (Alomirah, 2010) ................................................................................... 9
Figure 1.4 Current study process based on sequential-exploratory design .........................................13
Figure 2.1 The food production chain (CDC, 2015) ...............................................................................17
Figure 2.2 New components of the food safety inspection (source: Ababouch, 2000) ........................21
Figure 2.3 Three domains of public health (Griffiths et al., 2005) ........................................................22
Figure 2.4 Knowledge-to-action framework (Graham et al., 2006) ......................................................45
Figure 2.5 Scope of the study within KTA framework ..........................................................................47
Figure 3.1 Convergent parallel design (from Clark, 2019) ....................................................................53
Figure 3.2 Sequential explanatory design (from Clark, 2019) ...............................................................54
Figure 3.3 Sequential exploratory design (from Clark, 2019) ...............................................................56
Figure 3.4. Research design overview ...................................................................................................58
Figure 4.1 Sample map of themes, sub-themes and participants' quotations .....................................75
Figure 5.1 Percentage distributions of male and female PHI participants by age ..............................125
Figure 5.2 Percentage distributions of PHI participants over the three indicated work experience categories, by education/qualification ................................................................................128
Figure 5.3 Language confidence, by gender, reading English, and speaking English ..........................132
Figure 5.4 Percentage distributions of PHI participants over the two categories of the Clarity variable ‘Clear’ and ‘Not clear’ ...........................................................................................................149
Figure 5.5 The predicted dependences of the likelihood that PHIs would perceive the existing food safety laws and regulations as not clear ..............................................................................151
Figure 5.6 The Bloom’s taxonomy knowledge pyramid representing the increasing depth of knowledge and skills resulting from a learning process (Armstrong, 2016) ........................171
Figure 7.1 Example of outcomes linked to KTA framework ...............................................................210
Page | xiii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Summary of qualifications and training requirement ...........................................................34
Table 2.2 Key differences between the two approaches ......................................................................37
Table 2.3 HACCP principles ....................................................................................................................39
Table 2.4 The nine essential areas of skills and knowledge ..................................................................42
Table 4.1 Examples of the interview questions translation process .....................................................67
Table 4.2 Description of interview participants ....................................................................................78
Table 4.3 Samples from the themes and sub-themes .........................................................................106
Table 5.1 Sample of survey question translation process ...................................................................115
Table 5.3.1 Respondents gender and age ...........................................................................................126
Table 5.3.2 Years of experience and qualification, Public Health Inspectors .....................................127
Table 5.3.3 Public Health Inspectors’ workplace (municipality) .........................................................129
Table 5.3.4 Inspectors’ confidence in nine areas of knowledge .........................................................130
Table 5.3.5 Inspectors’ confidence in twelve areas of skills ................................................................131
Table 5.3.6 Received training about food safety since started working as a PHI ...............................135
Table 5.3.7 Helpfulness of training content ........................................................................................135
Table 5.3.8 Training attendance in the last 12 months .......................................................................135
Table 5.3.9 Intention to attend a training course even if there is no reward .....................................136
Table 5.3.10 Management of your own professional development (e.g., training, reading scientific articles) .................................................................................................................................137
Table 5.3.11 Number of times PHIs learnt about something new that has contributed to their professional development ...................................................................................................137
Table 5.3.12 Agreement level with statements related to training and education ............................138
Table 5.3.13 Ordinal logistic regression predicting frequency of attending training the in past 12 months .................................................................................................................................139
Table 5.3.14 Prevalence of receiving training by gender, education level, years of experience, municipality, and the mean and standard deviation of motivation by receiving training ..140
Table 5.3.15 Receipt of training over the course of PHI career, logistic regression ...........................141
Table 5.3.16 Presence of barriers that prevent professional training attendance .............................143
Table 5.3.17 Identification of potential barriers that prevent attendance of professional training (when answering yes or sometimes.....................................................................................143
Table 5.3.18 Topics that the participants identified a desire for further training ..............................144
Table 5.3.19 The most effective strategy for disseminating food safety information to PHIs ...........145
Table 5.3.20 Usefulness of various resources for training and professional development ................146
Table 5.3.21 Communication and clarity of food safety (Level of agreement on a six-point Likert scale) .....................................................................................................................................147
Table 5.3.22 PHI perception that the existing food safety laws and regulations are not clear, multiple logistic regression for the odds ratios (OR) ..........................................................................150
Page | xiv
Table 5.3.23 The frequency of encountering food from other cultures during inspection ................152
Table 5.3.24 When food from other cultures is encounter, possession of knowledge to inspect .....152
Table 5.3.25 Satisfaction level, job-related issues ...............................................................................153
Table 5.3.26 Areas of PHI’s they find difficult or want to improve .....................................................154
Table 5.4.1 Correlation between individual knowledge variables and the corresponding skill variables ..............................................................................................................................................156
Table 5.4.2 Mean and standard deviation of knowledge and skill by gender, education level, years of experience and municipality ................................................................................................159
Table 5.4.3 Regression analyses predicting knowledge and skill ........................................................160
Table 5.4.4 Logistic regression analysis predicting knowledge and skill .............................................161
Table 5.4.5 Mean and standard deviation of motivation by gender, education, years of experience and municipality ...................................................................................................................163
Table 5.4.6 Regression analysis predicting motivation .......................................................................164
Table 5.4.7 Logistic regression predicting motivation .........................................................................165
Table 5.4.8 Association between gender and municipality.................................................................166
Table 5.4.9 Mean and standard deviation of the item ‘My qualification program prepared me well for a real-life health inspector job’ by education level ..............................................................166
Table 6.1 Quotation samples from the qualitative study ....................................................................199
Page | xv
Abbreviations
EHM: Environmental Health Manager
EHO: Environmental Health Officer
FAO: Food and Agricultural Organisation
FBI: Food Borne Illness
FCS: Food Control System
GDEH: General Department of Environment Health
HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
KTA: Knowledge-to-Action Framework
MOMRA: Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs of Saudi Arabia
PHIs: Public Health Inspectors
WHO: World Health Organisation
Page | xvi
Statement of Original Authorship
I herewith assure that this thesis has not been partially or fully submitted to meet requirements
for an award at this or any other higher education institutions. To the best of my knowledge
and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person
except where due reference is made.
QUT Verified Signature
Page | xvii
Dedication
This work is dedicated to the soul of my father (may Allah be merciful to him), who was
waiting for me to complete my PhD and return to my country to be beside him.
To my beloved Mother who is always there for me. Without her unconditional love and prayers, I would never have made it.
To my lovely wife, Meznah, and my children, Lilian and Kayan. for their love, patience and sacrifice that they have tolerated while I completed this thesis and ask them forgiveness for being very busy. Without their constant support and munificent care, this work could not
have been completed.
Page | xviii
Acknowledgment
May all praise and glory be to Allah for bestowing on me the fortitude, the capability and the strength to undertake my Ph.D. It has been a challenging academic journey marked by both personal and educational ordeals.
Undertaking this PhD has been a life-changing and taxing experience for me, and it would not have been conceivable nor achievable without the genuine support and professional guidance I have received from many people. My heartfelt thanks go to all who have helped bring this thesis to fruition.
I have been blessed with a formidable supervisory team and would like to acknowledge the special people involved: Prof. Philip Baker, Dr. Darren Wraith and Ms. Belinda Davies.
My deepest appreciation goes to my principal supervisor, Prof. Philip Baker for his academic support, continuous guidance, and generous gifts of time during my PhD research. He has been an absolute inspiration for me as he guided my research work and focused my thinking, while at all times, encouraging me to pursue my dream. Without his help and support, this study would not have been possible.
Two other special people warrant my gratitude. Throughout my study, Dr Darren Wraith has been generous with his valuable suggestions and in particular, his knowledge and skills in research methodology. I will always remain indebted to him for helping me navigate the finer points of statistical data analysis.
Having Ms. Belinda Davies to advise me in food safety and environmental health has been of inestimable worth. Besides her overarching support and guidance in her field of expertise, I am particularly grateful to her for providing me the opportunity to undertake practical experience in food safety inspection at the local government level in Brisbane.
Moreover, particular thanks and appreciation go to Prof. Mark Brough for his academic support during the qualitative component development of the current study. His valuable input was a major factor in accomplishing this study.
I would not have been able to finish my Ph.D. course without the help and support of these amazing people.
I offer my thanks and gratitude to the Saudi Government for their valuable support and for granting me a Government scholarship that has extended over almost 11 years. This allowed me to pursue my Bachelor, Master and PhD studies here in Australia.
On a personal level, I thank my amazing cohort of fellow PhD students, in particular, Abduallah Alshareef, Emily Mann and John Cauchi for their constant support and their interminable encouragement.
Page | xix
In this final part of my acknowledgement, I wish to recognise and thank the many participants in this study for their cooperation and contribution to my research. Without their collaboration and valuable input, accomplishing this study would have been impossible.
Lastly, to the official editors Anne Varnes and Carl Smith, I thank them for their services in proofreading and editing the thesis according to the standards and knocking this thesis into linguistic shape.
Page | xx
Conference Participation
Alsaleh, S, (19-21 November, 2017) From traditional to risk-based food inspection in Saudi Arabia. Oral presentation at the 11th Dubai International Food Safety Conference, 2017. Dubai, UAE.
Page | 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides the background (Section 1.1), context (Section 1.2), scope
(Section 1.3), research questions (1.4), aims and objectives (Section 1.5), as well as describing
the methodology used in the research (Section 1.6). The chapter concludes with a thesis
document outline (Section 1.7).
1.1. Background
Each year worldwide, eating unsafe food causes 600 million cases of foodborne
illnesses (FBIs) and more than 400,000 deaths, resulting in the loss of approximately 30 million
years of healthy living (WHO, 2015). According to the Centres for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), roughly 1 in 6 Americans (48 million people) fall ill from consuming unsafe
food each year, 128,000 are hospitalised, and 3,000 people die of FBIs (CDC, 2011). In 2017,
841 FBI outbreaks were reported in the United States of America (US) and over half of the
outbreaks (489, accounting for 64%) were associated with restaurants or other food outlets
(Mattson et al., 2017). There is a similar problem in Australia with 4.1 million cases annually
of foodborne gastroenteritis, and an estimated 5,140 cases of non-gastrointestinal illness and
35,840 cases of sequelae. The annual estimation of hospitalisations due to FBIs in Australia is
31,920 cases (Martyn et al., 2014; Queensland Government, 2019). In Saudi Arabia, even the
FBI surveillance system is generally not adequate compared to those in developed counties.
Reflecting this inadequacy, the the number of reported FBI outbreaks has increased from 254
outbreaks in 2014 to 358 in 2018 (see Chapter 2 for further discussion) (Al-Mazrou, 2004;
Alsayegh, 2014; Todd, 2017; MOH, 2018).
Food safety is an important aspect of the Health Protection Domain, which is one of the
three key domains of public health practice described by Griffiths, Jewell and Donnelly (2005).
Page | 2
Health protection involves preventing and controlling infectious diseases through practices and
policies such as regulating food and water and associated environmental hazards. Ensuring safe
food requires the engagement of the key characteristics of the public health system such as
working within national policy frameworks, operating at all population levels, and supported
by information that is timely, accurate and accessible. Additionally, considering the Health
Determinants Model Figure 1.1, inefficient control of FBIs can hinder the socioeconomic
development by straining health care systems, and harming national economies, tourism and
trade (Whitehead & Dahlgren, 1991).
Figure 1.1 The main determinants of health (Whitehead & Dahlgren, 1991)
Food safety inspectors play a significant role within the public health system, in
particular, protecting the public from FBIs through inspection of food establishments (e.g.,
restaurant) and ensuring that food is stored, prepared, and served in a safe manner (Grover et
al., 2016; Hopper & Boutrif, 2007; Lammerding & Fazil, 2000; Pham 2010). Food inspection
has the potential to identify problems and prompt corrective action that protects the public’s
health and enhances the determinants of health and well-being. Currently, the literature
Page | 3
distinguishes between two key approaches to food safety inspection conducted by inspectors:
the traditional approach and the (modern) risk-based approach (Houghton et al., 2008; Marvin
et al., 2009).
The traditional inspection can be described as an approach that focuses on
environmental aspects and end-product testing to determine their compliance with regulations
(FAO, 2015), while the risk-based inspection is an approach that focuses its inspection
activities on risk factors to minimise the occurrence of FBI (FAO, 2015). Albersmeier et al.
(2009) summarised the traditional approach as one which tends to focus on reactive measures
towards identified problems which cannot sufficiently ensure consumer protection. In contrast,
the risk-based approach has a more proactive character, as it attempts to identify and address
food safety-related issues before they become a public threat. Research findings indicate that
the risk-based approach tends to be more effective in reducing FBIs (Buncic, 2006; FAO, 2015;
Sareen, 2014). Further discussion about the two approaches will be presented in Chapter 2.
In the last decade, many countries have moved their food safety inspection systems
towards a more risk-based approach (Koutsoumanis & Aspridou, 2016). One of the most
important factors contributing to the successful implementation of the risk-based approach is
the skills and knowledge of food safety inspectors (FAO, 2008; Jones et al., 2004; Newbold et
al., 2008). In 2008, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations
developed a manual to introduce risk-based inspection. The manual identified nine areas of
knowledge and skills required for inspectors to be able to conduct risk-based inspection (e.g.,
HACCP principles, laws and regulations, communication, etc.) (FAO, 2015). HACCP’s
definition and the skillset requirements and knowledge expectations of the modern food
inspector will be further discussed in Chapter 2.
Page | 4
1.1.1. Food Safety Inspection in Saudi Arabia
Food safety inspection carried out by Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) in Saudi Arabia
and the majority of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (of which Saudi Arabia is a
member) is best described as ‘a classic and traditional food inspection role’ (Al-Kandari and
Jukes, 2009). In 2007 the FAO and World Health Organisation (WHO) conducted a regional
meeting, and the resultant regional meeting paper stated that the inspection carried out by the
majority of GCC authorities is an example of a ‘classic and traditional food inspection role’,
where inspectors visit ‘randomly-selected’ food establishments and pass judgment based on
physical examination and personal experience. Further, the inspector’s practice was based upon
highly repetitive classic inspections. From these findings it can be concluded that the PHIs in
the GCC have only limited technical knowledge regarding food inspection and lack the
knowledge and skills required to utilise risk-based (modern) food inspection techniques and
tools (Al-Kandari and Jukes, 2009). Accordingly, these inspectors need to be educated about
contemporary expectations and food safety inspection practices.
In Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Municipality and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) has a
legislative and enforcement role in the food safety sector. There are approximately 2,700 PHIs
across the country, working within the Environmental Health Departments (EHDs) under
MOMRA (current study scope). They are the main professionals responsible for inspecting
food establishments, the supervision of slaughterhouses, commercial adulteration control, in
addition to participating in reaction to FBI outbreaks (Alsaleh, 2015). Other responsibilities
regarding the maintenance of food safety and quality (e.g., inspecting imported food and food
factories, etc.) in Saudi Arabia are addressed by other governmental departments, including
Saudi Food & Drug Authority (SFDA), Ministry of Health (MOH) Ministry of Environment,
Water and Agriculture (MOEWA) and Ministry of Commerce (MOC).
Page | 5
Figure 1.2 Authorities involved in food safety in Saudi Arabia
1.1.2. Contextual Factors
Manafa Capital, a finance company, published a report in 2019 based on data obtained
from eight governmental departments. The report states that the restaurant market in Saudi
Arabia is worth up to 79 billion Riyals (approximately 21 billion US dollars). Around 52,000
facilities are counted in this sector and they employ 252,000 non-Saudi workers (Manafa,
2019). Saudis spend 5.7% of their income on food and beverage services and visiting
restaurants and cafes is considered to be one of the most important activities in the country
(Manafa, 2019). Additionally, according to one of the Saudi Vision 2030 quality of life
programs the country is currently lagging behind the developed world in terms of the
restaurants-to-population ratio (2000 restaurants per one million people). The program aims to
increase this ratio to 2100 restaurants per one million in 2020 and up to 3010 restaurants per
one million in 2030 (Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.). Objective Number Seven in the Vision 2030
program requires MOMRA to provide a healthy local urban environment, and importantly, the
relevant key performance indicators against which the performance of the Ministry will be
evaluated include: An increase in the population satisfaction index with food safety; and a
decrease in public health incidences (e.g., FBIs) (Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.).
Page | 6
Another important determinant of health (Whitehead & Dahlgren, 1991) to consider
is equity and the need to empower Saudi women and increase their labour force participation.
This will contribute to increasing economic growth and the purchasing power of the population,
reducing the rates of cooking at home, and increasing the demand for food providing outlets
and restaurants. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), in 2018, Saudi Arabia had the lowest rate of female engagement in the labour market
among G20 countries, with around 23% of the female population participating in the labour
force (OECD, 2019). Nonetheless, this was an increase from just 14% in 1992 (World Bank,
2020). This trend towards the increasing engagement of women in the labour force in Saudi
Arabia is expected to continue in coming years (Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.).
These important social and economic changes constitute a major motivation for
significant alterations of current food safety inspection practices in Saudi Arabia in order to
ensure its compatibility with evolving social expectations and safety requirements in the
modern food industries of the developed and developing countries. In 2019, Saudi Arabia
announced the opportunity to privatise the food inspection system. Despite the lack of detail in
this announcement, the expected privatisation of the food inspection system may provide
further opportunities for the sector, as this period of transition could be a good time to introduce
change and improvement to the current inspection approach.
1.2. Context
The most significant knowledge gap in the area of food safety research in Saudi Arabia
is related to the lack of understanding of issues preventing or interfering with the improvement
of food safety inspection practices. Particularly, the significant lack of research regarding
improving PHIs ability to facilitate the transition from the current traditional food inspection
approach to the contemporary and more efficient risk-based approach. Particularly significant
Page | 7
is the lack of research curious given the endorsement of this approach by the FAO which
recommend its international adoption (Hopper & Boutrif, 2007) and anticipate it will
significantly reduce foodborne risks and illnesses (Bunic, 2006; Hoag et. al. 2007; Sareen,
2014).
Moving toward the risk-based approach requires Saudi PHIs to possess a skill set and
knowledge which covers a number of areas (e.g., HACCP principles, laws and regulations,
communication, etc.) (FAO, 2015). The current research investigated the knowledge and skills
required by PHIs to conduct risk-based inspections, including issues such as training, job
satisfaction, and motivation that could impact on the PHIs ability to conduct effective food
safety inspections.
Two suitable professional practice application and implementation frameworks were
identified and applied for the purpose of the current study:
1) The Risk-Based Food Inspection Manual developed by the FAO of the United Nation
in 2008
2) Knowledge-to-action framework (KTA) developed by Graham and colleagues in 2006.
The FAO framework was used to identify knowledge and skills required by PHIs to
conduct risk-based inspection, while the KTA framework was utilised to guide the process and
achieve the aim of the current study (more details in chapter 2). This research also sits within
other frameworks and theories that will be introduced in subsequent chapters.
1.3. Scope
The focus of this study is on PHIs working at EHDs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. These
PHIs are responsible for various environmental health issues such as food safety inspection,
sanitation, inspecting non-food premises, licensing. Due to the limited resources available for
Page | 8
the current study and the time provided in the candidature, the scope of this research was
limited to one critical area of their responsibilities, which is food safety inspections at food
establishments (e.g., restaurants). Food safety inspections were chosen as it is a primary activity
of their role. Managers of PHIs and PHIs educational institution (represented by the
Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma) were also included at the primary phase of the current
research to obtain different perspectives. Further description of the methodology will be
provided in section 1.6.
Due to time constraints and the limited resources available to the researcher, Riyadh
which is the capital city of Saudi Arabia was chosen as the optimum study location as it is
central (Figure 1.3). Further, the selection of Riyadh is likely to increase the chances of having
a greater impact compared with studying other cities in the country for the following reasons:
There are 11 EHDs within Riyadh. These departments have the largest number of
PHIs (approximately 502) in comparison with the 12 other regions in Saudi Arabia
(Emmad, F. personal communication, May 10, 2015). For the sake of comparison,
the second largest city in Saudi Arabia is Jeddah with about 100 PHIs.
Riyadh is the most populated city in the country with more than 7.6 million people
(General Authority of Statistics, 2018).
It offers access to education facilities for PHIs at the Technical College (TVTC).
Since these features are not in existence in other regions, Riyadh was the ideal place for
gathering the needed data to complete a well-rounded study. Further details about the study
setting will be described in Chapters 4 and 5.
Page | 9
Figure 1.3 Map of Saudi Arabia (Alomirah, 2010)
Saudi Arabia, officially the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) constitutes about four-
fifths of the Arabian Peninsula. The country’s economy is the largest in the Middle East and
the 18th largest in the world (International Monetary Fund, 2018). Saudi Arabia also has one
of the world's youngest populations, with approximately two-thirds of its population of 34
million being under 30 years old (General Authority of Statistics, 2018). Generally, the climate
in Saudi Arabia is hot and dry in summers and mild in winters.
Although the actual scope of the study was limited to Riyadh, the obtained outcomes
are expected to be generalisable to the 12 other regions of Saudi Arabia. This is because of the
uniformity of the food safety inspection approach, laws and regulations and PHI qualification
programs throughout Saudi Arabia. Whilst it is anticipated that the obtained outcomes of this
study will be generalisable to the other regions of Saudi Arabia, it is acknowledged that some
differences may occur between regions in logistic services and financial arrangements thus
limiting the generalisability of the obtained outcomes. Despite the indicated territorial
Page | 10
limitations of the scope of this study, its outcomes could be useful for other Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) countries including Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman that share
some similarities with regard to food safety inspection approach and PHI qualifications (Al-
Kandari and Jukes, 2009).
1.4. Research Questions
The research question is formed using a modification of the standard PICO format: an
acronym for Population/People, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (Adams et al., 2009).
The PICO framework provides a useful structure to develop focused answerable research
questions and this framework is primarily used for intervention studies (Adams et al., 2009).
However, PICO is often reformatted for other studies where there is no intervention and does
not seek to test specific relationships between variables. For instance, in this study, the
population (P) is the PHIs in Riyadh. However, there is no intervention or comparison. The
outcome (O) is the identification of knowledge and skills PHIs need to conduct risk-based food
inspections and other issues that may impact on PHIs performing their job effectively. The
appropriate study designs for addressing this broad question are both qualitative and
quantitative, and observational in nature (Petticrew & Roberts, 2003).
1.4.1. Primary Question
1. What knowledge and skills do PHIs in Riyadh require to conduct a risk-based inspection
(based on HACCP principles) at restaurants in accordance with FAO guidelines?
1.4.2. Secondary Questions
2. What is the current composition of the PHIs workforce in Riyadh and what are the issues
that prevent or impede PHIs from conducting effective food safety inspections and
enforcing food safety laws and regulations?
Page | 11
3. What are the levels of PHIs qualifications, knowledge, skills, and job satisfaction and
how could these characteristics be improved?
4. What is the current readiness of the PHIs workforce in Riyadh for the recommended
transition to the risk-based approach in accordance with FAO guidelines?
5. Based on the study findings, what measures could be recommended to improve food
safety inspection in Riyadh and broader Saudi Arabia?
6. To what extent, does the current education curriculum of the Food Safety Diploma at
Riyadh Technical College promote the HACCP principles?
1.5. Aims and Objectives
Aims:
Following the KTA framework, the aims of this thesis were to:
a) investigate and identify the knowledge and skills needed for PHIs to conduct risk-based
food inspections. Supplementary to this aim is the investigation and identification of
skill and knowledge gaps among Riyadh’s current PHIs, including barriers and factors
that may influence the effectiveness of food safety inspections. A further supplementary
aim is the investigation of the effectiveness of the PHIs qualification program in
addressing specific risk-based inspection's knowledge and skill (i.e., HACCP elements)
b) assess and adapt findings (from the above aims) to the local context and address
potential barriers and facilitators
c) to develop evidence-based information based on the findings for the authorities in Saudi
Arabia to facilitate an intervention to improve the ability of Riyadh’s PHIs to conduct
risk-based inspection and to perform their job effectively in order to provide safer food
for consumers thus protecting community’s health.
Page | 12
Objectives:
The following objectives were developed to achieve the above aims:
1) To investigate perceptions prevalent among PHIs in Riyadh about their existing levels
of qualification, knowledge, and skills to conduct risk-based inspection, including any
issues interfering effective job performance
2) To investigate if the existing food safety laws and regulations in Riyadh are adequate
and sufficiently clear for PHIs to enable them to carry out food inspection
3) To review the professional training programs currently available to PHIs in Riyadh,
including any shortcomings of such programs
4) To identify food safety issues that PHIs would like further training in and the
preferred format of such training
5) To identify and characterise the major points of dissatisfaction and demotivation
within the PHI workforce in Riyadh that may influence their food safety inspection
performance
6) To identify gaps in the curriculum of the Food Safety Diploma at Technical College
(PHIs qualified institution) with particular focus on HACCP principles
7) To determine the degree of readiness of the PHI workforce for the expected transition
to the risk-based food inspection approach.
1.6. Methodology
This study was undertaken using a mixed methods approach and utilising a sequential
exploratory design. This design combines qualitative and quantitative data collection and
analysis in a sequence of phases (Creswell, 2013; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). In the first
phase, the researcher collects qualitative data then analyses the data. In the second phase, of
Page | 13
the researcher collects quantitative data and then analyses the data. Figure (1.2) explains the
process undertaken in the current study.
Figure 1.4 Current study process based on sequential-exploratory design
Information about the methodology is presented in chapter 3. Additionally, design-
specific detail (e.g., development of interviews and cross-sectional survey instruments,
recruitments, data analysis, etc.) are provided in the relevant study chapter.
1.7. Thesis Document Outline
The next six chapters explain the existing literature; research methodology; study one,
the semi-structured interviews; study two, the quantitative cross-sectional survey; integration;
and the conclusion.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the existing literature regarding foodborne illnesses,
the role and contribution of PHIs to food safety, PHI competencies by country, training and
qualification requirements of PHI by country, traditional vs. risk-based inspection approaches,
Page | 14
the FAO knowledge and skills framework for risk-based inspections and the knowledge
translation framework.
Chapter 3 explains the research methodology utilised in this study. Information were
provided regarding the mix methods research, choice of the current study design ‘sequential
exploratory’ and ethical considerations.
Chapter 4 describes phase one the ‘semi-structured interviews’ of the current
exploratory sequential study. Starts with presenting the design-specific methods including the
development of the interviews’ questions, the translation method of the interview questions,
recruitment and eligibility criteria, etc. Then this chapter presents the findings and
interpretation of data gathered through the semi-structured interviews.
Chapter 5 describes phase two the ‘cross-sectional survey’ of this exploratory
sequential study. This chapter outlines the design-specific methods including the development
of the cross-sectional survey, the translation method of the survey questions, eligibility criteria
and recruitment, etc. Then, this chapter presents the results and discussions of the cross-
sectional survey.
Chapter 6 integrate and compare the qualitative and quantitative outcomes obtained
from phase one and phase two of this exploratory sequential research, including interpretation
and explanation of any identified differences or similarities between the outcomes from the
two adopted methodologies.
Chapter 7 presents the overall conclusive remarks, including the list of major findings
of the thesis and their significance, the strengths and limitations of the study, recommendations
and actionable strategies for food safety authorities resulting from the conducted analyses, as
well as proposed future research directions.
Page | 15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This review of literature seeks to provide information and background regarding the
study’s research questions. It was conducted considering the recommendations by Rowley and
Slack (2004) and Fink (2014). The review of literature is ‘a summary of a subject field that
supports the identification of specific research questions’ (Rowley & Slack, 2004, p. 31).
In addition to Saudi Arabia, the current literature review focuses on Australia, Canada,
the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK). These countries were chosen because:
they are perceived as having similar incidences of FBIs to each other. However,
it is not possible to compare rates in these countries to Saudi Arabia as the true
incidence of FBI in Saudi Arabia is unknown due to known issues of under-
reporting described earlier (Alsayegh, 2014; Al-Mazrou, 2004).
these countries have a primary language of English ensuring the literature is
accessible
they have developed risk-based food inspections. Comparing and contrasting
how each country approaches food inspector training and qualifications
provides a clearer picture of the commonalities and gaps in training and
preparation.
Health databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Medline and CINAHL were
searched, along with the websites of some governments and international organisations (e.g.,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Ministry of Municipal and
Rural Affairs (MOMRA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Food Standards
Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Food Standards Agency
UK, and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)). These databases were the most relevant
Page | 16
in terms of finding literature pertinent to the study area ‘public health’. All relevant government
reports and peer-reviewed food safety and inspection studies were included in the literature
review. The literature search was primarily conducted in 2016 and updated later as the project
progress.
Search terms and keywords used included ‘public health inspector’, ‘food safety
inspection’, ‘food regulations’, ‘knowledge and skills’, ‘competency’, ‘training and
qualification’, ‘professional development’, ‘public health inspectors’, ‘traditional inspection’
‘risk-based inspection’, ‘modern inspection’ and ‘foodborne illness’. These search terms were
used for the fields of title, abstract and keywords. Boolean logical operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’
were used to focus the search on relevant information. The differences in position title of food
safety inspectors (e.g., Environmental Health Officer and Public Health Officer etc.) were also
considered during the search process.
This literature review chapter is composed of Sections 2.2. Foodborne illnesses and 2.3.
a review of food safety inspection and the inspector’s role. Section 2.4. reviews the required
practices of a competent food inspector with reference to the United Kingdom, the United
States, Australia, and Canada. Section 2.5. discusses the qualification requirements in these
countries and in Saudi Arabia. Section 2.6. compares traditional and risk-based food inspection.
Section 2.7. focuses on the two frameworks used in the current study ‘FAO Risk-Based
Manual’ and ‘Knowledge to Action’ framework.
2.2. Food Borne Illnesses (FBIs)
FBIs are a burden on public health and continue to be a significant cause of human ill
health and death and impede socioeconomic development (CDC, 2011; Whitehead &
Dahlgren, 1991; WHO, 2015). An FBI is defined as an illness caused by consuming
contaminated food or drinks. There are more than 250 types of FBIs.; most FBIs are caused by
Page | 17
bacteria, virus, or parasite. However, toxins and chemicals can also cause FBIs (CDC, 2020).
The severity of FBIs can range from mild such as stomach cramps and nausea, to life-
threatening. Contaminated food most often results from failure to clean, separate, cook, and
chill food correctly (CDC, 2020). Also, food can become contaminated at any point along the
chain of food production (Figure 2.1). One of the critical points along this chain is the food
business (e.g., restaurant) (Mattson et al., 2017).
Figure 2.1 The food production chain (CDC, 2015)
It should be noted that the FBI incidence presented in this section may not directly be
comparable as Canada and US statistics relate to FBI’s in general, while Australia’s rates refer
to gastroenteritis. Regardless of these variations, the comparisons are still helpful to form an
understanding of the magnitude of the problem persisting in these countries. Worldwide, FBIs
pose a serious problem. Every year there are over 600 million cases of FBIs causing
approximately 400,000 deaths (WHO, 2015). The CDC (2017) estimate that in the US 48
Page | 18
million people (one of every six people) get ill from an FBI every year. Of those, 128,000 are
hospitalised and 3,000 die. FBIs often come in the form of outbreaks with multiple people
getting ill from one cause and one location. In the US in 2017, there were 841 FBI outbreaks,
more than half of those outbreaks were caused by eating from restaurants and other food
facilities (Mattson et al., 2017).
The US is not alone in its struggle with FBIs. Australia with an estimated population of
23 million, reported 4.1 million cases associated with gastroenteritis and 5,140 incidents with
non-gastrointestinal illness, and 31,920 associated hospitalisations (Martyn et al., 2014;
Queensland Government, 2019). Reports from Canada indicated that there are 4 million people
(one in every eight people) who acquire a FBIs each year. Of these, there are 11,600
hospitalisations and 238 deaths (Government of Canada, 2016). In the UK in 2018, there were
2.4 million cases of FBIs with 16,400 hospital admissions (Holland & Mahmoudzadeh, 2020).
In Saudi Arabia, with a population of 34 million, the number of reported FBI outbreaks
has increased from 254 outbreaks in 2014 to 358 in 2018. More than half of these outbreaks
were associated with commercial sources (e.g., restaurants) (MOH, 2018; World Bank, 2020).
Although the number of reported FBIs has been increasing, the situation may actually be worse
than reported. Al-Mazrou (2004) and Alsayegh (2014) argue that the systems for reporting
incidences of FBI in Saudi Arabia are not as stringent or reliable as in developed countries
resulting in insufficient and unreliable data. Evidence indicated that a surge in FBI outbreaks
in Saudi Arabia is usually recorded during the hot summers, from June to August and during
the annual Hajj (annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca). During the Hajj, the quantity of food
purchased from outside eateries significantly increases and more people succumb to illnesses
(MOH, 2018; Jahan, 2012; Al-Mazrou, 2004).
Page | 19
In the Saudi context, it appears that multiple factors including a hot climate (which
provides favourable conditions for the growth of opportunistic pathogenic bacteria), inadequate
knowledge of food safety among food handlers, and inappropriate food inspection and
monitoring by PHIs contribute to the increased risk of FBI outbreaks in the community, thus
providing a greater challenge for health professionals (Jahan, 2012; Al-Mazrou, 2004). Aljoudi
et al. (2010) and Al-Mazrou (2004) argued that food temperature misuse, inadequate reheating
treatment, and unhygienic handling were the most important factors causing FBI outbreaks.
Knowledge on food safety in the food preparation process and the risk factors that can lead to
FBI is low among the food handlers in Saudi Arabia. Training and proper health education
messages are needed to raise the awareness of food handlers as well as the public in general
(Aljoudi et al., 2010; Al-Mazrou 2004).
2.3. Food Safety Inspection and Inspectors Role
Food safety inspection is the process of ensuring compliance of the food business with
regulations and laws governing food safety and health (FAO, 2008). It is the heart of the
enforcement system to ensure that food is safe for human consumption (Hutter et al., 2008;
FAO, 2008). A Food Safety Inspector, is an important part of the enforcement system and
depending on the country, may also be referred to as an Environmental Health Officer (EHO),
a Public Health Inspector (PHI), a Public Health Officer, or a Food Inspector (FI).
There were a number of reasons underlying the emergence of the food inspector as an
independent position (Phillips & French, 1998). In the British context, the key reason was
described in detail by Collins (1993). During the 19th and 20th centuries, the UK experienced
an industrialisation boom where retailers and manufacturers had a rare opportunity to undertake
food adulteration (Collins, 1993). The phenomenon became widespread and resulted in a high
number of deaths, and this led to the creation of an appropriate framework and the emergence
Page | 20
of a new role – the food inspector (Collins, 1993; Phillips & French, 1998). In addition, the
role of the food inspector has changed over time, as has public perception of the role
(Koutsoumanis & Aspridou, 2016). Early on, an inspector was perceived as an investigator
whose main responsibility was to analyse evidence and correctly identify the cause of problem.
Later, the function shifted towards enforcement (Almanza & Nesmith, 2004).
Although food inspector capabilities have received surprisingly little attention
(Albersmeier et al., 2009; Johnston et al., 2013), there is a growing body of empirical literature
demonstrating the significant role of the food inspector in ensuring food safety (Albersmeier
et al., 2009; Wilcock et al., 2004). According to Cerit (2015), an inspector`s objectivity,
knowledge of local laws and regulations and competency in conducting effective analysis can
greatly influence the identification of food safety issues in the processed meat industry. Evans
et al., (2002) conducted a study of a viral gastroenteritis outbreak in restaurants to illustrate
the importance of food safety inspection and to demonstrate the complex analytical and
experimental work that needs to be conducted in order to correctly identify the pathogen
responsible for a given FBI. Lacors (2004) points out that the effectiveness of a PHI often
depends on how successfully they combine two functions - advice and enforcement. Regardless
of their specific skillset, knowledge, qualification, or expertise, a PHI needs to be able to
successfully diagnose a problem, develop correctional actions and communicate and
implement actions with the retailer (Caraher & Dowler, 2007; Johnston et al., 2014).
According to Ababouch (2000) and Mascini and Wijk (2009) the responsibilities of
food inspectors have dramatically evolved during the last few decades. The major change has
been observed in a shift from a purely diagnostic and assessment driven role to more proactive
and risk-based evaluations (Mascini & Wijk, 2009). In addition, modern food safety inspectors
are expected to possess knowledge and expertise in risk management (Ababouch, 2000), as
well as an ability to develop effective correction actions (Figure 2.1). Varzakas et al., (2006)
Page | 21
argue that modern food inspectors are also expected to be able to communicate their findings
to business representatives, discuss the obtained results, suggest corrective actions and perform
follow-up inspections to ensure improvement has been achieved and the food safety issue has
been eliminated. It can be argued that the position of food inspector has evolved from an
analytical and enforcement approach to a proactive and risk-based approach (Johnston et al.,
2013).
Figure 2.2 New components of the food safety inspection (source: Ababouch, 2000)
FBIs impede socio-economic development by straining health care systems and
harming national economies (Chorna et al., 2018; Jaffee et al., 2018; Dahlgren & Whitehead,
1991; WHO, 2015). A recent economic evaluation conducted by the World Bank indicated that
the impact of eating unsafe food costs low- and middle-income economies around US$ 110
billion in lost productivity and medical expenses each year (World Bank, 2018). According to
the same study:
A large proportion of these costs could be avoided by adopting preventative
measures that improve how food is handled from farm to fork. Better managing the
safety of food would also significantly contribute to achieving multiple Sustainable
Development Goals, especially those relating to poverty, hunger, and well-being.
Also, The World Bank study supports a shift in food regulation and inspection
approaches to achieve sustainable socio-economic development (World Bank, 2018). One of
the important measures recommended to improve the food safety is building the capacity (e.g.,
Management Analysis Corrective actions Communication Follow-up
Page | 22
food inspectors’ knowledge and skills, tools, equipment) to improve the inspection practices.
Taking that into account, food safety inspector’s practices and their inspection activities are
significant and play major role in promoting public health and well-being (by protecting the
public from FBIs), being one of the determinants of health (Whitehead & Dahlgren, 1991;
Grover et al., 2016; Hopper & Boutrif, 2007; Lammerding & Fazil, 2000).
Additionally, food safety inspection and the food safety inspector play a significant role
in the Health Protection Domain within the Three Domains of Public Health Model (Griffiths
et al., 2005). The model is based on the concept that public health is everybody’s business
(Griffiths et al., 2005). It holds that the different domains aid in understanding the vital aspects
of public health and the three domains are not separate but overlap and depend upon each other
(Figure 2.3.).
Figure 2.3 Three domains of public health (Griffiths et al., 2005)
Juergen Voegele, the Senior Director of the Food and Agriculture Global Practice at
the World Bank stated “Food safety receives relatively little policy attention and is under-
Page | 23
resourced. Action is normally reactive—to major foodborne disease outbreaks or trade
interruptions—rather than preventative,” (World Bank, 2018). In recent years, public concern
about FBIs and the safety of food is placing increasing pressure on government agencies to be
more prescriptive and proactive in their policy and regulation of the food industry (Martinez et
al., 2007; Elmsallati, 2011). Using the health protection domain concept, governments play a
key role in protecting community health by creating policies and procedures that are associated
with food safety inspection. For instance, governments can progressively work on improving
the food safety inspection system by making it risk-based (more effective in FBI prevention)
and providing the food safety inspectors with the necessary tools (e.g., knowledge, skills, and
training to conduct risk-based inspection). This is to improve people’s health by providing
standardised, evidence-based and ‘objective’ evaluations of food safety associated risks
(Buncic, 2006; FAO, 2008; Martinez et al., 2007; Koutsoumanis & Aspridou, 2016; Sareen,
2014).
2.4. Practice Competencies by Country
The required qualifications and duties of inspectors vary depending on the local context
and the requirements regularly change due to the fact that more knowledge is accumulated, and
new methods are developed to identify and combat food-related hazards (Koutsoumanis &
Aspridou, 2016; Johnston et al., 2014). This section will discuss the practice competencies
currently required by the legislature of the UK, USA, Australia and Canada. These countries
have been selected for benchmarking against since they have a developed and comprehensive
risk-based inspection system in place.
United Kingdom
In UK, the food inspector position is referred to as an Environmental Health Officer
(EHO). They are required to possess a number of practice competencies by the jurisdiction of
Page | 24
the UK. According to Hobbs et al., (2002), the food industry of the UK is largely impacted by
initiatives from within – often coming from supermarket retailers. The two key legislative
frameworks determining the current food safety approach (as well as practice competencies of
assurance staff) are the Food Safety Act of 1990, and legislature developed following the
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy crisis. Additionally, the Food Law Code of Practice
(FLCoP) issued under the Food Safety Act 1990, that gives instructions to local authorities to
follow and implement when enforcing food law (Food Law Code of Practice, 2017) is another
key piece of legislation.
The key characteristics of the current approach to food safety in the UK are monthly
inspections and an overall delegation of responsibilities to the private sector (Hobbs et al.,
2002). The present goal of the food industry in the UK is to restore the level of confidence of
its consumers (Hobbs et al., 2002; Hutter & Amodu, 2009). EHOs are required and expected
to be able not only to conduct hazard analysis, but also risk-assessment and the development
of correctional actions, which have to be clearly communicated to relevant stakeholders (e.g.,
retail management, the public and the media) (Hutter & Amodu, 2009). As pointed out by
Johnston et al., (2014), a EHO is expected to possess solid knowledge of Public Health, Food
Hazards and Laws and Practices related to food safety, regardless of their country of origin.
The UK EHO must possess knowledge and understanding of legislative requirements relevant
for the UK (e.g., the Food Law Code of Practice and any other relevant guidance) (Loader &
Hobbs, 1998). An EHO must also possess knowledge of the HACCP evaluation routines and
processes, as well as an overall ability to develop and perform necessary enforcement actions
(Loader & Hobbs, 1998). Individuals applying for higher rank positions are also expected, in
addition to the practice competencies outlined above, to plan and prioritise various food
standards programs (e.g., effective and regular monitoring, efficient use of the available
resources). In the UK, only EHOs and official veterinarians are authorized to analyse, detain
Page | 25
or even seize food after they have established that it may pose risk to public health and safety
(Food.gov.uk, 2016).
Among the key types of practice competencies relevant to food and the function of the
UK EHOs are: the ability to perform inspections and audits; the responsibility to conduct
verification and monitoring procedures; the ability to offer advice and education to retailers;
and the competency to gather intelligence information concerning a specific food safety risk.
Additionally, EHOs are also expected to perform food sampling visits (Food.gov.uk, 2016).
Moreover, according to the current legislative framework, EHO are expected to possess proven
practice competencies in the following three areas: sampling, inspection of food establishments
and reactive investigation (Food.gov.uk, 2016). Furthermore, the Food Standard Agency
(Food.gov.uk, 2016) has developed a number of additional requirements for each of the listed
competencies, detailing the expected level of competency from EHOs. For example,
concerning the sampling competency, EHOs are required to possess practical knowledge of
such important aspects as: knowledge of available databases and an ability to distinguish
between national versus local sampling priorities; knowledge of both formal and informal
sampling techniques along with tools to validate the chosen methodology; the ability to conduct
a sound interpretation and extrapolation of the obtained results, and the ability to translate the
obtained results into actual risks to public health (Food.gov.uk, 2016). Similar to the other
countries discussed below, the legislative framework concerning food safety in the UK is
subject to change, and so the practice competencies of EHOs are constantly evolving.
United States
The US food safety inspection system has developed incrementally over time, with
significant work developed as early as 1957 (Teratanavat & Hooker, 2004). In contrast to the
UK, the US system of food safety is based on a network of national, state and various local
level regulations (Becker & Porter, 2007). At least three state bodies (the Food Safety and
Page | 26
Inspection Service (FSIS), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)) employ food safety inspection specialists responsible
for ensuring that the US commercial food supply is safe for consumers (as well as properly
packaged and labelled). The key legislative frameworks regulating food safety procedures,
including the competencies expected from the food safety inspections are the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act of 1984, the Egg Inspection Act 1970 , the Poultry Inspection Act and the Meat
Inspection Act 1957 (Teratanavat & Hooker, 2004). Additionally, the recent Food
Modernisation Safety Act of 2011 which aims to improve food safety and mostly impacts on
the activities of the FDA is a further example (Kotsanopoulos et al., 2017).
Within the context of the US, there is a major difference between the practice
competencies of federal food safety inspectors versus those at the state and local level. For
instance, only federal level inspectors conduct inspections of food manufacturing facilities that
are in contact with the FDA. The same categories of inspectors are required to possess
competency in carrying out inspections of farms (Kotsanopoulos et al., 2017; Johnson, 2012;
DeWaal, 1999). However, state and local-level inspectors are the ones usually responsible for
the investigation of local level outbreaks of various FBIs. Federal-level inspectors may only be
involved in such assessments when the outbreak becomes larger (e.g., involving more than one
state) (Teratanavat & Hooker, 2004). Similar to the expected competencies of food inspectors
in the UK, the work of US inspectors is more focussed on assessment of potential risk, with
slightly less emphasis on planning the complex measures needed to combat an existing threat
and communicating it to the producer (retail outlet) of the specific type of product (DeWaal,
1999). In addition to the discussed competencies and proficiencies, US food safety inspectors
are expected to possess a strong knowledge of HACCP principles and practices (Crim et al.,
2014). This is to ensure that the HACCP programs applied by the food establishments are
working correctly. Taking that into account, the food safety inspectors should evaluate the
Page | 27
HACCP programs by either assessing the HACCP manual (documentation‐based review) or
by an on‐site assessment and verification of whether the “approved” HACCP program is
properly implemented (Kotsanopoulos et al., 2017; Johnson, 2012; Ababouch L. 2000).
The expected competencies of US inspectors also depend on the job level of the specific
inspector (Crim et al., 2014). ‘Entry-level’ food inspection jobs require little more than the
ability to conduct regular inspections (e.g., testing of end products and sampling) of specialised
food facilities. Inspectors are expected to obtain training and demonstrate experience within a
chosen career path; for example, mislabelling of products, risk assessment within the chosen
industry, coordination of inspecting interventions (DeWaal, 1999). These competencies are not
regulated by the local frameworks and are instead established by the hiring organization ‘third
party auditors’ (DeWaal, 1999).
Newbold et al., (2008) point out that general guidelines and procedures adopted at the
federal and local level of the US, are subject to constant changes. When these changes occur,
all inspection staff, regardless of their experience and years in practice, are required to undergo
re-training in order to standardise their approach to food safety assessment procedures
(Newbold et al., 2008).
Australia
Within the context of Australia, the discussed position is commonly referred to as an
Environmental Health Officer (EHO) (enHealth, 2009). The role of an efficient EHO has been
recognised as an effective factor in the potential prevention of accidents such as the ‘Garibaldi
Incident’ of 1995, a mass food poisoning (Hobbs et al., 2002). In Australia, there are three
levels in the food regulatory system corresponding to each level of government (local, state
and federal). Each level has a specific role in protecting public health and safety through
regulating food (including imported food) for human consumption (Food Standard Code,
Page | 28
2015). Australian state governments, according to Hobbs et al., (2002) are entities responsible
for the development and implementation of legislative frameworks related to food safety. This
situation, however, has led to the appearance of multiple frameworks across the different states.
In response to this situation ‘Australian Standards’ have been developed by the Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, which standardises the
approach to multiple food safety related issues (Hester & Rossiter, 2016; Hobbs et al., 2002).
The ‘enHealth Environmental Health Officer Skills and Knowledge Matrix’ (enHealth
matrix) has been developed in Australia to describe the essential skills and knowledge for
EHOs. The enHealth matrix is ‘a nationally agreed description of the skills and knowledge
required to support the breadth of activities undertaken by EHOs’ (enHealth, 2009). The
document identifies the food inspection skills and knowledge needed by EHOs in Australia.
These skills include communication for the provision of food safety information to businesses
and the public, sampling techniques, applying HACCP principles for the identification of
hazards, and analysis of foodborne illness records (enHealth, 2009). Similar to the UK and the
US, the key practice competencies expected from the EHO are associated with a knowledge of
food hazards, the legislation, and an analytical toolkit necessary to identify a specific threat to
food safety (enHealth, 2009; Hobbs et al., 2002). In addition, EHA accredited tertiary courses
that provide EH Qualifications and the unit content is reviewed by peers.
Australia is undergoing a transition to the risk-based approach (Smith et al., 2016).
However, it has been facing some obstacles in the process of implementation (Smith et al.,
2016). Although all the required legislation and standards supporting risk-based inspections
are in place, Smith et al., (2016, p. 6) indicates that ‘the difficulty lies in the implementation of
such a policy approach, which is dependent on local councils for most of the implementation’.
According to Smith et al., (2016, p. 6), who cites a Productivity Commission finding from
Page | 29
2012, it is ‘the issue of a lack of resources at the local level’ which has been identified as the
main obstacle to policy implementation. This is because the ground resources are a critical
factor for the implementation of the Food Safety Standard as the Standard demands a
specialised resource at the local level, that is, officers that have been trained in adapting the
new risk-based approach methods to food safety rather than using the command and control
methods of inspections and end product testing. (Smith et al., 2016, p. 6).
Canada
Within the context of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) as well as
Health Canada (HC) share responsibility for issues related to food safety (Hobbs et al., 2002;
Tonsor et al., 2009). Public Health Officers (PHOs) in Canada are expected to exercise various
measures that are aimed at public health protection. The key practice competencies outlined by
the current legislative framework include: conducting assessment of food safety issues at hand,
enforcing local legislation related to food safety, and conducting practices aimed at minimising
health risks to the public (Hobbs et al., 2002; Martinez et al., 2007). Officers are therefore
expected to possess the knowledge and techniques required for food facility inspection,
knowledge of approaches to the development and implementation of public disease controls.
Similar to the regulations established by the UK, an emphasis is placed on an officer’s ability
to perform functions related to risk management, as well as having the communication skills
required to build the necessary rapport with third parties (e.g., retailers and the public) (Hobbs
et al., 2002; Johnston et al., 2013; Martinez et al., 2007).
Seed et al., (2013) point out that the current jurisdiction of Canada requires PHOs to
possess solid practical knowledge of activities related to risk assessment of a given situation
involving food safety risks. Within the context of Canada, Seed et al., (2013) emphasise the
importance for the officer to also consider the community component of any assignment, and
possible hazards involved. Officers are therefore encouraged to recommend solutions that can
Page | 30
be viewed as sustainable for the entire community (e.g., active involvement of the private
sector, such as business owners, in food safety training and assessment processes) (Seed et al.,
2013).
Spriggs and Hobbs (1999) and Hobbs et al., (2002) point out that it is the CFIA that is
responsible for both the accreditation of new inspectors (through the approval of Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points, or HACCP), and the inspection services themselves.
Certain aspects of inspection accreditation and standards may be under local (or provincial)
jurisdiction. Similar to the UK, the private sector also develops initiatives concerning food
safety Quality Assurance (QA) (Spriggs & Hobbs, 1999). Unlike the situation in the UK,
Canadian food safety management is largely shaped by external forces – particularly its exports
of food to the US and new developing markets (Hobbs et al., 2002).
Saudi Arabia
In Saudi Arabia, the food safety inspector position is usually referred to as a Public
Health Inspector (PHI). The maintenance of food safety and quality is addressed by different
governmental departments, including the Ministry of Municipality and Rural Affairs
(MOMRA), the Saudi Food & Drug Authority (SFDA), the Ministry of Health (MOH),
Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MOEWA) and Ministry of Commerce
(MOC) (Alsaleh, 2015). However, MOMRA, which was established by Ministerial circular
in1966, has the major role in the legislation and enforcement of the food safety sector at the
local level (Al-Mutairi et al., 2015). It has a significant role in setting food safety legislation,
registration and licensing food businesses, regulating food and health inspection, supervision
of slaughterhouses, dealing with FBI outbreaks, and conducting food and water sampling. The
other governmental departments such as SFDA, MOH, MOC, MOEWA are generally
responsible for regulating the safety and quality of imported food and drugs for people and
animals, inspecting farms and large food factories, surveillance, recall and tracking systems
Page | 31
etc. (Al-Kandari & Jukes, 2009; Al-Mutairi et al., 2015). The key legislative frameworks
regulating food safety procedures include: the conditions of poultry farms, egg and chicken
sales (1983); the health conditions of slaughterhouses (1984); and the health conditions of food
and health premises (1984) (Al-Mutairi et al., 2015).
Unlike the situation in the UK, USA, AUS and Canada, the food safety inspection
approach in Saudi Arabia is traditionally based (Al-Kandari & Jukes, 2009). The food safety
inspection visits are based on highly repetitive and classical inspection (Al-Kandari & Jukes,
2009). Additionally, the inspectors have only limited knowledge and skills regarding food
inspection and lack the knowledge and skills required to conduct risk-based food inspection
(Al-Kandari & Jukes, 2009). In Saudi Arabia, there is a major difference between the practice
competencies of MOMRA inspectors versus those working at SFDA (Al-Kandari & Jukes,
2009). For instance, only MOMRA inspectors are responsible for of food safety assessments,
sampling, investigating FBI outbreaks, and enforcing local food safety legislation at small and
medium-sized businesses such as restaurants. While SFDA inspectors conduct food safety
assessments for imported food, and large-sized food businesses, such as food manufacturing
facilities (Al-Kandari & Jukes, 2009; Al-Mutairi et al., 2015) Also, MOMRA food safety
inspectors are not required to possess knowledge and skills in applying HACCP principles.
2.5. Qualification by Country
The qualification requirements of the food safety inspector position (e.g., EHO, PHI
etc) can vary by country and sometimes by organisations within a country. The aim of this
section is to compare and contrast the qualifications of inspectors in countries such as the UK,
the US, Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. The comparison has been summarised at the end
of this section (see Table 2.2).
Page | 32
United Kingdom
The UK has developed a number of rules and regulations concerning the qualification
requirements of EHOs. More specifically, an EHO is expected to hold as a minimum an
undergraduate degree from a University which offers programs approved by the Environmental
Health Registration Board and by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)
(Cieh.org.uk, 2021; Food.gov.uk, 2016). It is also common for an EHO to possess a
postgraduate qualification. In addition to formal education, UK officers undergo training
practice, aimed at gaining practical knowledge (Cieh.org.uk, 2021). The training usually
concludes with a formal oral assessment of the trainee`s knowledge, and examination of his/her
experiential logbook (Food.gov.uk, 2016). After obtaining an appropriate degree and practical
training, EHOs may become certified in the UK (Hobbs et al., 2002).
United States
Within the context of the US, the requirements for the food inspectors are comparable
to those of the UK. Whilst the minimum educational requirement for an applicant is to hold an
undergraduate diploma, specific qualifications greatly vary and depend on whether the
candidate is applying for a job with United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a local
office or a private organization (Crim et al., 2014). Moreover, in relation to the growing threat
posed by various FBIs, a number of states now require food inspectors to undergo special
training aimed specifically at developing a better understanding of the most relevant FBIs
(Almanza & Nesmith, 2004). Such training is usually concluded with an examination, after
which an attendee will obtain a state recognised certification (Almanza & Nesmith, 2004;
Crespi, 2001). In addition to the appropriate education and training, a number of federal and
local level organisations, expect a food inspector to become certified through one of the
accredited organisations (e.g., National Environmental Health Association (NEHA)) (Crim et
al., 2014).
Page | 33
Australia
In Australia, The Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) regulates all formally
accredited training programs. The minimum requirement for an EHO position is a Bachelor’s
degree in Environmental Health or a Bachelor’s degree in Public Health (enHealth, 2009).
Postgraduate qualifications majoring in environmental health may also be acceptable
qualifications for EHOs.
The institution offering such bachelor-level and post-graduate programs must have
accreditation from Environmental Health Australia (EHA). EHA in turn ensures that the
courses and modules offered within the accredited programs develop the skills and knowledge
the national system identified as essential for an EHO (enHealth, 2009).
Canada
In Canada, PHOs are expected to have a minimum of an undergraduate degree in an
Environmental Health Program from one of the six higher education institutions accredited by
the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors (CIPHI); for example, British Columbia
Institute of Technology, Cape Breton University, and Ryerson University (Butler-Jones, 2008;
Raphael & Briant, 2006; Seed et al., 2013). In order to obtain the necessary certification, a
candidate PHO is expected to obtain a Bachelor’s degree, be certified by CIPHI and enrol in a
field training practice (Seed et al., 2013). The practical training is completed by submitting
reports and undergoing a written or oral exam. Some positions may also require additional
training in specialised fields of knowledge; for example, toxicology, microbiology (Seed et al.,
2013). Unlike the US system, Canadian requirements are standardised across provinces.
Saudi Arabia
In terms of training, a program of food safety is run by the Technical and Vocational
Training Corporation (TVTC). TVTC is a government agency with responsibility for
Page | 34
vocational education and training in the Saudi Arabia. Prior to 2005, the educational
prerequisite to be a Public Health Inspector was the attainment of a secondary diploma. The
current educational requirement to become a PHI in Saudi Arabia commenced in 2005 when
the program was expanded to include a two-year diploma with three months of field training
after secondary school (tvtc.gov.sa, 2016). Interestingly, there are no opportunities for PHIs
who want to undertake further study inside Saudi Arabia.
Table 2.1 Summary of qualifications and training requirement
Qualification Training General Notes
UK Minimum undergraduate diploma
Only after obtaining an appropriate diploma and practical training, EHOs may become certified in the UK
It is also common for an EHO to possess a postgraduate qualification
US Minimum undergraduate diploma
Some states require inspectors to undergo special training
Qualifications vary and depend on what organisation applying for
AUS Minimum requirement Bachelor`s degree
There are available opportunities for training
Educational institution offering such bachelor-level and post-graduate programs must receive accreditation from Environmental Health Australia (EHA)
Canada Minimum requirement Bachelor`s degree
Officers required to undergo a field training. Some positions may also require additional training in specialized fields of knowledge
Six educational institutions offer such bachelor-level degrees and they are accredited by the Public Health Inspection (PHI)
Saudi Arabia
Two-year diploma after secondary school
There are available opportunities for training
Prior to 2005, the educational prerequisite to be inspector was a secondary diploma.
2.6. Traditional (Classic) Vs. Risk-based (Modern) Food Inspection
The very first cases of the traditional (classic) food inspection in the US were in 1906
when the Federal Meat Inspection Act was passed (Cates et al., 2001). Traditional food
inspections primarily focused on establishing effective hygiene control and dealing with any
associated food safety issues on reactive actions (Albersmeier et al., 2009; FAO, 2015). In
contrast, the risk-based (modern) food inspection approach began in the mid-1980s and is more
Page | 35
preventive than reactive (Albersmeier et al., 2009; FAO, 2015; FSIS, 2015). In alignment with
Health Domains Model mentioned earlier, the policy and regulation of risk-based inspections
is more effective in health protection and minimising FBIs (FAO, 2015; Prakashbabu et al.,
2018).
The traditional approaches to food safety inspection are characterised as being resource-
intensive and inefficient. Their focus is typically on responding to issues that have taken place
or violations that are present rather than preventing those issues from occurring (Albersmeier
et al., 2009; FAO, 2015; U.S. FDA, 2015). Additionally, traditional inspection allows for a
satisfactory assessment of the general requirements at the time of inspection. However, this
approach could prove futile if an inspector does not ask questions or inquire about the activities
and procedures being employed by the establishment (Cates et all., 2001; FAO, 2015).
There are several disadvantages regarding the classical approach of food inspection.
First, the results obtained from this approach are retrospective, meaning that all costs have
already been incurred if any hazards are identified in the end-product testing (FAO, 2015). If
the involved personnel had the foresight to correct impending hazards, the extra costs would
be greatly minimised. This way, safety procedures would be put in place from the outset.
Another disadvantage is that it is time exhaustive. When sampling and testing a product, it
could take several days before a result is available. Variability in the chances of finding a
hazard is yet another disadvantage (Sareen, 2014). In most cases, there are no hazards detected
despite all the hard work involved in the sampling and testing phases. This results in the sense
of ‘being in control’, which is arguably nothing but a false sense of security. In addition, results
from traditional testing are often labelled using terms such as ‘acceptable, satisfactory,
adequate, and suitable’. Inaccurate assessment by inspectors could result in increased food
safety inspection costs without necessarily improving the effectiveness of hazard elimination
Page | 36
(Sareen, 2014). As a result of these issues, the use of the newer and improved risk-based
approach is encouraged.
The risk-based food inspection approach as previously mentioned is more focused on
preventing issues and situations that can lead to FBIs than reacting to issues and situations and
has been demonstrated to improve public health (FSIS, 2015; Hoag et al., 2007). This is
because inspector practices focus not only on the conditions of the physical environment at
food facilities (like in the traditional approach) but also on the risk factors that may cause FBIs
(e.g., improper food holding/time and temperature, contaminated equipment/protection from
contamination, inadequate cooking, food obtained from unsafe sources, etc.) (FDA, 2018).
Implementation of the risk-based approach has several significant advantages,
including the ability to effectively utilise management, personnel, and funds. This approach
provides jurisdictions with a credible method of determining the frequency of food inspections.
The FDA’s 2001 Food Code suggests that food inspection of facilities be undertaken between
one and four times a year depending on the severity of the impending hazards (FDA 2001).
There are four major steps in the risk-based inspection approach: hazard identification, hazard
characterisation, exposure assessment and risk characterisation (Canadian Food Inspection
Agency, 2015). These steps are employed to minimise the risk of contracting FBIs by
thoroughly inspecting food establishments (e.g., bakeries and restaurants) and helping them
reduce risks through education and enforcement (FSIS, 2015).
The risk-based food approach is viewed as superior to the classical approach because it
places an emphasis on preventive measures rather than corrective actions (Albersmeier et al.,
2009; FAO, 2015; FSIS, 2015; Sareen, 2014). Also, this approach uses limited resources in a
more effective manner by knowing the impending hazards before they present. The risk-based
approach investigates and applies enforcement action proportionate to the risk at hand and
Page | 37
places the responsibility for safety on the various stakeholders involved rather than the
government.
Table 2.2 Key differences between the two approaches
2.7. The FAO and KTA Frameworks
2.7.1. Introduction
Theoretical frameworks can be described as the blueprints for a PHD thesis inquiry.
Theoretical frameworks serve as a guide on which to build and support one’s research program.
There are many views in the literature as to what constitutes a theoretical framework. Using
frameworks is important in research studies and allows the thesis to be strong and structured.
As described by Osanloo & Grant (2016), “Without a theoretical framework, the structure and
vision for a study is unclear, much like a house that cannot be constructed without a blueprint”
(p. 12). Frameworks also connect researchers to existing knowledge by using relevant theory
(Imenda, 2014). Nevertheless, although there are several definitions of what constitutes a
theoretical framework, the selected research framework should resonate with the aim and
purpose of the research (Osanloo & Grant, 2016; Varpio et al., 2020)). As mentioned in Chapter
One, to assist and direct the research process to achieve the intended outcomes (see section
1.5.) two frameworks have been identified and used in the current research: (i) FAO Risk-
Classical Approach Risk-Based Approach Corrective measures Preventive measures
Inspections are randomly planned Priority is based on risk factors
Emphasis is on product and premises of
inspection
Emphasis is on the process and control
to address risk factors
Samples are collected for assurance
purposes
Samples are collected for verification
purposes
Page | 38
Based Inspection Manual and (ii) Knowledge to Action Framework. These two frameworks
will be discussed in the next two sections.
2.7.2. Knowledge and Skills Framework: FAO Risk-based Inspection Manual
FAO has supported the development of many standardised guidelines, in collaboration
with many international, intergovernmental and governmental bodies (FAO, 2015). Following
the Improved Food Safety and Quality at the National Level and the Along the Food Chain
project, the FAO created the Risk-Based Food Inspection Manual (FAO, 2015). It was
developed to support capacity building for better and effective national food control systems.
The specific objectives of the manual are:
to provide food inspectors with implementable guidelines for conducting risk-
based inspections according to modern demands
to provide a roadmap for food inspectors that can be used in their inspection of
primary production or processing operations across the entire food sector,
regardless of the specific product(s) handled or manufactured by the inspected
establishment
to reorient food inspection from a product-based process to a risk-based process
to serve as a training and reference tool for food inspectors.
In the current study, the FAO Risk-Based Inspection Manual was found to be an
appropriate guideline that identified the knowledge and skills required by food inspectors to
conduct risk-based inspection. The theories underpinning the principles of the manual allows
the manual serves to an over-arching theoretical framework. For instance, HACCP is a
systematic science-based preventive approach to control FBIs, and the FAO manual
recommends that the food safety inspector should be well knowledgeableof its principles
Page | 39
(Bryan & WHO, 1992; FAO, 2008; Hutter et al., 2009). Therefore, the FAO manual can be
described as “blueprint that is borrowed” for the current study. In addition, based on the
Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework (discussed in section 2.7.3) the FAO Manual can be
classified as third-generation knowledge that can be used within the action cycle of the KTA
Framework to better reach the intended users. As described by Graham et al., (2006) third-
generation knowledge provides synopses such as practice guidelines, manuals and decision
aids. Therefore, the information from the FAO Manual was taken into the action cycle of the
KTA Framework to facilitate the implementation knowledge translation process.
There are nine knowledge and skills areas (KSAs) identified in the manual as being
essential for modern inspectors to undertake risk-based inspections. These will be discussed in
this section and a summary has been provided at the end of this section (see Table 2.4).
KSAs 1: Comprehensive understanding of food laws and regulations
FAO emphasises the need for inspectors to understand the legal framework guiding the
inspection of food processing facilities. Inspectors must also have a thorough knowledge of the
regulations pertaining to occupational and environmental safety, food transport and distribution
as well as best practices in agriculture (FAO, 2008).
KSAs 2: Understanding and application of HACCP Principles
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system is a rational, reliable, and
cost-effective method for reducing the risks that can lead to FBId or food spoilage (Bryan &
WHO, 1992). In the manual, the FAO indicates that HACCP is a risk-based approach, and the
inspectors need to have a good understanding of its elements. In addition to understanding the
HACCP elements, food inspectors should use inspections as an opportunity to educate
manufacturers and food handling businesses on HACCP. For the proper application of
Page | 40
HACCP, it is necessary for inspectors to obtain the necessary knowledge and certification on
HACCP guidelines (FAO, 2008).
Table 2.3 HACCP principles
Principle 1 Conduct a hazard analysis
Principle 2 Determine the critical control points (CCPs)
Principle 3 Establish critical limits
Principle 4 Establish monitoring procedures
Principle 5 Establish corrective actions
Principle 6 Establish verification procedures
Principle 7 Establish record-keeping and documentation procedures
KSAs 3: Communication skills
Other than conducting inspections, inspectors must have strong communication skills
that allow them to engage effectively with stakeholders including management, small business
owners, farmers, and others involved in the food value chain (FAO, 2008).
KSAs 4: Knowledge of sampling techniques
To conduct effective product testing, inspectors must have comprehensive knowledge
about different sampling tools and techniques, and safe handling of samples for laboratory
testing. Advanced sampling techniques not only facilitate informed decision-making, they also
ensure the integrity of the entire inspection process (FAO, 2008).
KSAs 5: Understanding of best practices regarding sanitation and hygiene
For inspectors to evaluate whether food-processing facilities meet national and
international standards, they must be knowledgeable about the various sanitizing agents and
Page | 41
their implications for food safety and quality. The inspector must also be knowledgeable about
the interaction between cleaning materials and certain bacterial groups and be able to test the
amount of these compounds in food to determine if the residue amounts are acceptable (FAO,
2008). Knowledge of hygiene practices including food hygiene and personal hygiene and the
ability to communicate this knowledge to stakeholders is critical.
KSAs 6: Competency in inspection procedures
Inspection of food processing facilities is a systematic and strategic process. To ensure
that facilities adhere to national and international standards of food safety and quality,
inspectors must be thoroughly knowledgeable in areas such as analysis of food safety issues
and the performance of inspections and audits (FAO, 2008).
KSAs 7: Knowledge of food safety and quality standards
Inspectors are required to understand food microbiology, food chemistry and food
processing operations and other elements of quality pertaining to food manufacturing. It is
important that the inspectors understand these elements and their role in food safety and the
way these elements interact with one another (FAO, 2008).
KSAs 8: Skills to verify compliance
In addition to possessing the requisite competencies to conduct inspections, an
inspector must also demonstrate verification skills and the ability to conduct effective
interpretation and extrapolation of inspection results. Professional experience gained over
several years of fieldwork enables inspectors to evaluate those issues and areas that are
important to upholding food safety (FAO, 2008).
KSAs 9: Genuine certification in related fields
Professional food inspectors need prerequisite academic qualifications and professional
development to meet the needs of the fast-changing food industry (FAO, 2008). Food
Page | 42
processing entails a variety of matrices and interactions with external factors that could be
chemical, microbial, or physical in nature. These interactions have implications for food safety,
requiring thorough inspection by inspectors to protect consumers against fraud and food-borne
diseases. Technology, consumer demands, management practices, and supply chain
developments continue to change the food industry. These changes make it necessary for food
inspectors to possess appropriate skills and knowledge to conduct inspections and evaluations
that adhere to national and international standards.
These nine essential areas of skills and knowledge mentioned above are summarised
in the table below.
Table 2.4 The nine essential areas of skills and knowledge to conduct risk-based food inspection
Areas of skill and knowledge
1 Relevant laws and regulations
2 Understanding the HACCP principles
3 Communication skills
4 Food sampling techniques and testing methods
5 Understanding of best practices regarding sanitation and hygiene
6 Knowledge of food safety and quality standards
7 Skills to verify compliance
8 Inspection techniques
9 Original training certificate and required certificate updates
Page | 43
2.7.3. Knowledge Translation Framework: Knowledge-to-Action (KTA)
This Section aims to firstly provide a background about the Knowledge Translation
(KT) terminology and the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework, followed by the intended
use of the KTA model that applied to the current study.
One of the most significant challenges in public health research is the translation of
research evidence into practice and policy (Graham et al., 2006; Grimshaw, et al., 2012). To
avoid such challenges, a process of knowledge translation needs to be considered early in
research. The terminology KT has gained significant momentum in recent times due to its high
impact in medicine and public health (Baumbusch et al., 2008; Straus, et al., 2013; Sullivan &
Cen, 2011). The Canadian Institutes for Health Research provide the following comprehensive
definition of KT:
the simultaneous process of synthesis, exchange and ethically sound application of
knowledge between researchers and users to catalyse the capturing of advantages of
research to result in improvements in health care, development of health care products
and services, and eventually lead to a better health care system is known as knowledge
translation (Straus, et al., 2013).
The significant impact of KT on promoting public health justifies its use in research
related to food inspection practice and the prevention of FBIs. Through KT researchers,
educators, and policymakers have been able to address the gaps between what is practiced and
what evidence-based studies reveal (Grimshaw, et al., 2012). Research studies carried out in
the Canadian food safety system have shown through knowledge translation strategy, that the
awareness and engagement of researchers and the government policymakers increases, which
has a positive impact on the safety of food (Wolfe, 2012). Also, the WHO Department of Food
Safety and Zoonoses (FOS) has adopted a KT strategy for the prevention of FBIs in its fifth
country-wide task (Press, 2013).
Page | 44
In general, KT appears similar to regular knowledge dissemination, that is, making
others understand the research data and its implications for real life. However, KT is a bit
different from what has been commonly known as knowledge dissemination (Ward, et al.,
2009). Firstly, it involves a complex process (e.g., quality research). Secondly, the model must
be system-enhancing (the process of translation and the domain of application). Thirdly, it must
influence the behaviour of the participants and the outcomes. Thus, it differs from the
traditional dissemination process since the knowledge must be created and the application must
lead to beneficial and realistic results (Ward, et al., 2009).
The KTA framework was developed by Graham and colleagues in the 2000s, based on
a review of more than thirty planned action theories to help in knowledge translation process
(Graham et al., 2006). The KTA framework contains two separate, but related components as
illustrated in (Figure 2.4). The Knowledge Creation ‘funnel’ section demonstrates that
knowledge needs to be progressively refined before it can be considered ready to be used
(Graham et al., 2006). While the Action Cycle section identifies the required activities for
knowledge implementation. Additionally, these two components can influence each other, and
the action cycle may occur sequentially or at the same time (Graham et al., 2006).
Page | 45
Figure 2.4 Knowledge-to-action framework (Graham et al., 2006)
As mentioned in the previous section the FAO knowledge and skills framework are
considered third-generation knowledge (product tool in the Knowledge Creation funnel) of the
KTA framework. To better reach the targeted users, this tool needs to be taken to the next stage
‘the action cycle’ (Graham et al., 2006). There are seven stages in the action cycle journey, and
they can be carried out by multiple stakeholders and groups at different time. For example,
researchers can complete stages, leaving the remaining stages to others to promote and
facilitate (Graham et al., 2006). These stages are:
1) Identify a problem that needs addressing. Identify, review, and select the
knowledge or research relevant to the problem (e.g., FAO guidelines).
2) Adapt the identified knowledge or research to the local context.
3) Assess barriers to using the knowledge.
Page | 46
4) Select, tailor, and implement interventions to promote the use of knowledge
(i.e., implement the change).
5) Monitor knowledge use.
6) Evaluate the outcomes of using the knowledge.
7) Sustain ongoing knowledge use.
Rycroft-Malone and Bucknall (2010) argue that despite the relatively recent publication
of the KTA framework in 2006, its use has already been documented in a variety of nursing
and public health journals and in health policy and dissertations. In addition, the face and
content validity of KTA framework has been demonstrated in several studies and
implementation projects (Galaviz, 2014; Graham & Tetroe, 2007; Harvey & Kitson, 2015).
Therefore, use of the KTA framework in the current study appears to be suitable for guiding
the efforts which aim to provide evidence-based information and actionable strategies to food
safety policy makers in Saudi Arabia. The use of this framework is intended to generate better
interventions to improve food safety inspection practices at restaurant and subsequently
provide safer food for consumers and promote public health. Figure 2.5 explains the current
study scope (stages 1 to 3) within the action cycle of the KTA framework.
Page | 47
Figure 2.5 Scope of the study within KTA framework
2.8. Conclusion
This comprehensive literature review discussed the foodborne illnesses issue as a
burden on public health that is hindering socioeconomic development in the Health
Determinants Model. In addition, this chapter discussed the food safety inspection and the role
of the PHIs in minimising the risk of FBIs and protecting public health within the Three
Domains of Public Health Model. Current practice competency and qualification requirements
of PHIs by country and the differences between traditional and risk-based inspections in
controlling the risk of FBIs were also discussed. The chapter concluded with an explanation of
the two main frameworks used within the current study; (i) the FAO framework as the
knowledge and skills guideline for the PHI in Riyadh to conduct risk-based inspections, and
Page | 48
(ii) the KTA framework as strategies to adapt the knowledge from the FAO guideline to suit
the local context and facilitate the implementation process. This leads to the next chapter of
this thesis which will generally discuss the selected methodology and justification for the
methods used to answer the research questions along with ethical considerations and approval
from the related bodies.
Page | 49
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodology applied in this study; the study-specific
methods and details will be discussed in the related study chapters (Chapters 4 and 5). The
current research aimed to explore the knowledge and skills required by Public Health
Inspectors (PHIs) in Saudi Arabia to conduct risk-based food inspections and to investigate
issues that could hinder PHIs in performing their duties effectively, that is, protecting the public
from foodborne illnesses (FBIs) (see Chapter 1 section 1.5. for details). Despite the rapid
changes occurring in the food industry and the noticeable transition in Saudi society from a
traditional to a modern lifestyle, research around food safety and the PHI workforce is quite
new, and many opportunities exist for further exploration and investigation (Al-Kandari &
Jukes, 2009; Al-Mutairi et al., 2015; Manafa, 2019; OECD, 2019; Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.).
Due to this lack of information, the developed research questions (see Chapter 1, section 1.4)
were exploratory in nature. Consequently, a mixed-methods study design was selected, more
specifically, a mixed-method design utilising a sequential exploratory approach (Creswell,
2013).
This chapter has been organised into four sections. The first section covers the
research design of the study. Since this study adopted a mixed research design method, the
approach is discussed in terms of its applicability in research. The second section covers
methods of mixed research design and sequence priority. Different methods of mixed research
design exist. As such, this section explores in detail the three major types and the sequence
priority underpinning their application in research activities. The third section discusses the
study design method used in this study. Extensive research evidence is discussed in this section
to explain why a sequential exploratory approach of mixed study design was applied to carry
Page | 50
out this study. A detailed discussion regarding the research tools that were used to source data
in the individual stages of the sequential exploratory approach is also provided. The fourth
section covers the ethical considerations that were considered before undertaking this research
study.
3.2. Research Design
As this thesis implements a mixed-methods design, the purpose of this section is to
describe the journey in developing the study’s methodology across several research disciplines.
The foundational premise is that research design is identified as an arrangement of
methods for the collection and analysis of data that aims to bring relevance to the purpose of a
research study (Selltiz et al., 1962). It involves methods that are used for collecting valuable
data, the development of data collection tools, sampling methods, and techniques for analysing
the data to enable the researcher to effectively address the research questions (Cooper &
Schindler, 1998). There are three major research approaches in social science research:
qualitative, quantitative and mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative study designs are grounded on the views of people and observe the research
parameters from the perspectives of the study participants and are thus used to develop theories
for explaining different behaviours and phenomena (Pole, 2007). Since qualitative research is
exploratory, it is applied in research topics that are new or for which existing theories fail to
apply (Creswell, 2014). On the other hand, a quantitative study design tests theories and
measures relationships between variables and the effect of such variables on the research
outcomes of interest (Creswell, 2014). For instance, this design is recommended in projects
involving the determination of factors that lead to a certain phenomenon or the efficacy of a
certain intervention.
Page | 51
In quantitative research studies, data are collected through standardised methods
which can be recorded and analysed using statistical methods, making it accurate and objective
(Pole, 2007). The major difference between the two methods is that in qualitative research,
researchers rely on subjective information to construct a reality which is then used to explain a
phenomenon theoretically while quantitative research is conducted through scientific analysis
of data thereby developing a conclusion (Pole, 2007). A mixed or combined method is a recent
research design that involves hypothesis and investigative approaches (Creswell & Clark
2007). As such, a qualitative study design is employed to theorise potential co-relations
between certain characteristics of the research parameters. The outcomes of the first study are
further reinforced via a quantitative approach which studies aspects in a research study that
consist of data that can be computed via statistical and other scientific methods to investigate
the topic.
A combined approach was chosen to study the knowledge and skills that PHIs in
Riyadh require to conduct a risk-based food inspection and to study the factors that may
influence the effectiveness of the inspection due to its comprehensive scope as a study design.
Various researchers support the extensive scope of applying a combined approach in research.
For instance, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) report that the combined method is better than
using a single method because it involves answering questions which are not examined by other
methods and that the combined approach also provides a strong reference to the studies and
different views. Additionally, combined methods can also cover the faults of other methods
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010; Creswell & Clark 2007). Similarly, Creswell (2012) supports a
mixed research design by stating that using qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single
study is the best way to collect, study and analyse data. Furthermore, mixing quantitative and
qualitative datasets in research proves helpful in understanding the research problem (Creswell,
2014). A study by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) preferred using the combination of both
Page | 52
approaches, quantitative and qualitative datasets, in single study to examine a similar concept
to the one undertaken in this study.
3.3. Mixed Methods and Sequence Priority
Mixed method research designs are composed of three approaches: parallel mixed
methods design that is converging in nature; a sequential mixed methods design that is
explanatory in nature and thirdly, a sequential mixed method design of exploratory nature.
These three designs are the main available approaches for mixing quantitative and qualitative
components in a mixed study design (Creswell & Clark, 2018; Clark & Ivankova, 2016;
Andrew & Halcomb, 2009). Before applying a mixed-method study design in a scientific study,
timing, weighting mixing, and theorising are key parameters that a researcher ought to consider
(Creswell & Clark, 2011). Under timing, the researcher has to consider whether their
qualitative and quantitative data collection occurs sequentially or concurrently. When weighing
a preferred approach of mixed study designs, priorities such as audience of the study, the
interest of the researcher and the key aspects of the study that need to be emphasised are
important factors to be considered (Creswell & Clark, 2011). During mixing, a researcher
decides on when and how the mixing will occur. Mixing can occur during collection of data,
its analysis or during the interpretation of collected data. Further, the mixing can take the form
of connecting, integrating or embedding the collected data. When theorising, the scientific
perspective that guides the research study is further investigated by the researcher to confirm
the suitability of a certain approach of mixed research study design.
(a) Convergent Parallel Design
One of the most common designs of the mixed-method study design is the convergent,
parallel design method according to Creswell (2014). It is relevant to use this design when
various methods have been used to endorse that the findings obtained can be applied to a greater
Page | 53
degree to vast populations. Various methods are used in the convergent, parallel mixed-
methods design to support each other by employing quantitative as well as qualitative data
collection and data analysis for similar parameters (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009). During the
research process, the researcher carries out qualitative and quantitative studies concurrently
(Figure 3.1). Further, the researcher weighs the two methods equally and analyses the results
independently. The researcher also tries to triangulate the methods by comparing the statistical
results of the quantitative component to the findings of the qualitative component to develop a
possible validation, convergence or corroboration of the parameters under study (Creswell,
2014).
Forming an integrative merging analysis of the findings is an essential step after
triangulation. The researcher is able to determine the interaction of study parameters from a
qualitative and quantitative perspective, single out the most important interactions and describe
similarities in the findings (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Additionally, by merging the two data
sets, a researcher can determine converging or diverging aspects of the research parameter
(Creswell & Clark, 2011). Later, an integrative interpretation of the analysis is developed to
provide insights on the identified interactions. The interpretation provides a holistic discussion
of the phenomenon under research. One of the advantages of the convergent parallel design is
that little time is wasted as both quantitative and qualitative data sets are gathered together.
Figure 3.1 Convergent parallel design (from Clark, 2019)
Page | 54
(b) Sequential Explanatory Design
It is believed that out of all the approaches in the combined method study design, the
sequential explanatory mixed-method design is the simplest (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009). It is
also commonly used by researchers with a strong emphasis on the quantitative aspect of data.
It involves collection of quantitative data and data analysis, followed by an extensive collection
and analytical stage of qualitative data (Figure 3.2). A greater emphasis is placed on
quantitative data while mixing of the data is done after the first quantitative results are obtained.
In the qualitative phase, a detailed explanation and understanding of the critical issues faced in
the quantitative stage are also presented (Creswell, 2014). This design offers an extensive
comprehension of the unanticipated issues or important distinctions that emerge from and are
brought about by examining the overall population involved in the research (Creswell, 2014).
Figure 3.2 Sequential explanatory design (from Clark, 2019)
The findings inform the second step of the initial stage, and it is in the integration stage
that the actual formulation of the outcomes is done. Although the two stages are separate, they
are also connected, and an explicit theory can be formed to explain the overall result. The
Page | 55
strength of this approach emanates when research produces unintended results during the
quantitative part of the study. In such a scenario, the qualitative stage of data collection can be
directed towards addressing the peculiarities in the initial study in further detail. However, this
approach may lack a definite theoretical perspective (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Another
advantage of this design results from its straightforward nature in terms of separate steps and
stages, making it easily applicable in the field. Additionally, it is also easy to report the results
using the sequential explanatory approach. Despite having several strengths, the sequential
explanatory approach is time-consuming since data is collected in two separate stages which
are given the same priority in terms of duration (Creswell, 2014).
(c) Sequential Exploratory Design
A valuable part is played by the sequential, exploratory mixed methods design in
formulating better measurements by recognising the factors to be evaluated (Creswell, 2014).
Additionally, the sequential exploratory strategy is useful when developing and testing a new
instrument, which is the case in the current study (Creswell, 2013).
The sequential exploratory strategy has two main phases (Figure 3.3). Qualitative data
are collected and analysed at the first phase, then utilising the outcome of this analysis to the
development of a quantitative data collection tool which will be used to collect data in the
second phase. Significant differences exist between the sequential explanatory and exploratory
designs. For instance, sequential explanatory begins with quantitative data while the sequential
exploratory approach begins with qualitative data (Creswell, 2014). Secondly, the explanatory
approach is a method of choice when dealing with explaining relationships while the
exploratory approach is better suited in investigating a phenomenon. Since the sequential
exploratory approach is better in investigating a phenomenon in a specific population, it aligns
with the objectives of this study.
Page | 56
Figure 3.3 Sequential exploratory design (from Clark, 2019)
The sequential exploratory approach has several advantages in research. First, there is
greater applicability of the sequential, exploratory mixed methods design for research carried
out in a comparatively novel field, where it is vital to recognise critical issues. Secondly, it is
beneficial for a researcher who intends to investigate not only a phenomenon but would also
like to increase the scope of qualitative data. The approach leads to the further development of
a new data collection instrument. Among researchers who are more familiar with the
quantitative approach, the sequential exploratory approach presents qualitative data in a way
that is easy to understand (Creswell, 2014). However, it has a few disadvantages. For instance,
it is time-consuming. Also, when opportunities to integrate are identified, the researcher must
decide on which outcomes from either phase need to be incorporated (Creswell, 2014).
3.4. Choice of the Study Design
Within this study, a mixed-methods approach was used which blends qualitative and
quantitative data collection and analysis methods (Creswell, 2013). It has been asserted from
the literature that it is difficult to carry out mixed methods research; hence, the application of
such designs should depend on their particular benefits for the research (Creswell & Clark,
Page | 57
2007). It was vital to identify the priorities in the strategy design of this study before the mixed
methods study research was conducted. In addition, determining the main mechanism for
gathering data in any research is critical, and this may be quantitative or qualitative and may
be awarded the same significance in the study (Creswell, 2014; Morgan, 1998). Nonetheless,
it was claimed by Andrew and Halcomb (2009) that both methods do not need to have equal
significance; rather, it should be ascertained.
This specific study utilised a sequential exploratory approach ‘‘QUAL→QUAN’’.
Sequential exploratory research, as mentioned above, is characterised by having a primary
phase of qualitative data collection and analysis, followed by the second phase of quantitative
data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2014). The lack of information and literature about the
current competence of the PHI workforce and the food inspection related issues in Saudi Arabia
led to the use of the qualitative method at the first phase to gather and explore more information
relevant for the current study. Later, the gathered information was used to assist in developing
the instrument (cross-sectional survey questionnaire) used in the subsequent phase of the data
collection, which was useful in collecting a wide array of information, studying a large sample
population over a relatively short duration and in generalising the study outcomes beyond the
population being studied (Creswell, 2014; Walter, 2013; Travers, 2013). Further detail will be
discussed in the related study chapters (Chapters 4, 5 and 6).
Page | 58
Figure 3.4. Research design overview
3.5. Integration
Research is considered to have adopted a mixed-method study design when data is
integrated at a single or multiple level in the research process (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009;
Fetters, et al, 2013; Guetterman, et al, 2015; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). This is known as
the mixing of data. A researcher needs to consider the relationships between the outcomes that
Page | 59
may be obtained at different levels of a research process, such as collection and analysis of
data, or while discussing the findings. Integration of data in mixed study designs is discussed
in a study done by Andrew and Halcomb (2009) who asserted that integration signifies a key
ingredient of mixed methods research, and should be carried out during the stages of data
collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or in the discussion of a thesis. The research
questions determine the decision on when the findings are to be integrated and in what manner.
This incorporates the way it is developed, and if, during any phase of the research, secondary
questions emerge (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009). Therefore, a researcher needs to indicate the
way different qualitative and quantitative findings inform one another and offer unique
responses to the research questions. In the current study, qualitative data and quantitative data
were gathered and discussed individually. Integration of the data was done to provide more
insight regarding the parameters under investigation. A point to note is that the findings of the
initial study informed the data collection tool of the subsequent study; hence, instead of
integration, it was interaction at this stage. Further explanation regarding the integration of
findings from the qualitative and the quantitative studies are discussed in Chapter 6.
3.6. Ethical Considerations
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC)
of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) approval number (1700000384) (see
Appendix A). According to the ‘National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research’
(NSECHR) Chapter 4.8: People in Other Countries:
When a researcher from an Australian institution proposes to conduct
research in another country, additional ethical considerations may arise.
In some situations, regard for the beliefs, customs and cultural heritage of
participants will require recognition of values….
Page | 60
This current study has been designed, taking into consideration cultural and legal
factors and obtained local and official support. Approval to conduct the research was obtained
from the Cultural Mission of Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Canberra (SACM), Ministry
of Municipal and Rural Affairs in Saudi Arabia (MOMRA) and Technical and Vocational
Training Corporation (TVTC), Saudi Arabia (see Appendix B, 3 and 5). Data collection
confirmation was obtained from the main Environmental Health Department in Saudi Arabia
(see Appendix D). Additionally, based on the information provided in ‘Chapter 2.1 Risk and
Benefit’ of the National Statement, there is no identified risk of harm in the two phases of this
study, and any predictable risk is no more than the inconvenience caused by giving up time to
participate in an interview or completing the survey questionnaire form.
With regards to Study One ‘Semi-structured Interviews’ and to minimise the risk and
to ensure understanding of the study, the participants were informed about ethical principles,
such as anonymity and confidentiality, a letter describing the study was given to the
participants, along with an invitation and investigators’ contact details (see Appendix G and
8). Also, the study participants were requested to choose an interview date, time and select a
place suitable to them. Additionally, in Study Two, submission of a completed survey was
recognised as a consent to take part in the research. Any potentially identifying personal
information was not acquired from individuals. Confidentiality of collected data was always
guaranteed. Participation was voluntary, and Participant Information Sheets (PIS) with the
investigators’ contact details were provided on the first page of the online survey (see Appendix
M). All documents in both studies were created in English and then translated into Arabic to
meet the needs of the participants and to ensure fairness and respect (NSECHR, 2007). Further
information about ethical considerations associated with the sampling and recruitment are
discussed in the relevant study chapter.
Page | 61
3.7. Conclusion
This chapter discusses the research design applied in this study to answer the research
questions. A mixed study design was used due to its comprehensive scope as a study design.
Further, the applicability of a mixed study design in research is validated since various scholars
such as Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) and Creswell and Clark (2011) support the approach.
The three main approaches of mixed study design methods of research were discussed, and the
rationale for the chosen research design, sequential exploratory, was presented. For instance,
the sequential exploratory strategy in this study took place in two phases namely collection and
analysis of qualitative data in the first phase, then in the second phase, the collection of
quantitative data (Creswell, 2014).
The first phase of the study applied semi-structured interviews as data collection tools
and involved seven participants (see Chapter 4 for more details). The findings of this stage
informed the knowledge and skills framework and was used to develop a quantitative data
collection tool. In the second phase, quantitative data were sourced from an online survey; its
results were analysed with points of integration being developed (see Chapters 5 & 6 for more
details). Due to ethical considerations, the participants undertaking the semi-structured
interviews were informed about ethical principles, such as anonymity and confidentiality. A
letter describing the study was also given to the participants, along with an invitation and
investigators’ contact details. In the second phase, research ethics were upheld since the
participation of the study subjects in the research was voluntary, and no personal information
was collected in the survey.
Page | 62
CHAPTER 4: STUDY ONE – SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
4.1. Introduction
This chapter outlines the qualitative study, which is the first phase of this sequential
exploratory study (see Figure 3.4). The aim was to provide firsthand insight into the current
situation of food safety inspections and the PHI (Public Health Inspector) workforce in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia. This study is novel because it aimed to understand—for the first time—the
current food inspection practices, PHIs’ professional needs and their qualifications to
modernise the inspection approach. Therefore, it was important to conduct a comprehensive
qualitative study to identify any issues with food safety enforcement in Riyadh. As explained
in the next section, qualitative analyses are typically focused on discovering certain phenomena
where little prior knowledge exists about the degree of relevance of such phenomena to the
question under investigation (Chenail, 2011; Jacob & Furgerson, 2012; Leech, 2002). Put
differently, a qualitative analysis typically establishes a reasonable framework for the research
questions (see Section 1.4) and issues that might be appropriate for the study. Therefore, the
purposes of the qualitative study described in this chapter are twofold. First, it informs the
development of the subsequent survey instrument by identifying issues associated with PHIs’
competence and the inspection approach in Riyadh (which were not previously known due to
a significant lack of prior relevant studies). Second, it serves as an additional benchmark for
further verification and comparison of the quantitative outcomes ‘the second phase of this
research’, thus enhancing the validity of the adopted sequential exploratory approach.
The first part of this chapter provides details about the study methods. This is followed
by the findings and interpretations of the major themes.
Page | 63
4.2. Methods of Phase 1
The data-collection method for Phase One (see Figure 3.4) was from seven semi-
structured qualitative interviews. This section includes a discussion of the development of the
interview questions, the translation method, the training and preparations for the interviews,
the recruitment process, the inclusion criteria, sampling, data analyses and trustworthiness.
Development of the Interview Questions
When creating interview questions, the role of the researcher should be as an
investigator who wishes to discover certain phenomena from the interviewees’ perspectives.
This can be done by structuring interviews with open-ended questions starting with words like
‘who’, ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ (Chenail, 2011; Jacob & Furgerson, 2012).
Leech (2002) suggested that researchers have to determine what they really want to know, then
write these ideas down before framing the questions. In this study, three structured guides for
the interviews were developed (see Appendices 9, 10 and 11) according to the role of the
interviewee—PHIs, Environmental Health Managers (EHMs) and the Diploma Coordinator.
The development of the interview questions was derived from the literature review (e.g.,
Ababouch, 2000; Al-kandari & Jukes, 2009; Al-Mutairi et al., Alsaleh, 2015; FAO, 2008; FSIS,
2015; Pham, 2009). The interview questions were then refined through discussions with the
supervisory team (one of whom was a senior lecturer in environmental health, with extensive
experience as an environment health specialist for local governments).
The purpose of the interview questions was to answer the overarching research
questions specified in Chapter 1 (i.e., PQ1, SQ3, SQ5 and SQ6). The interviewer enquired
about the skills and knowledge that PHIs need to conduct risk-based inspections, perform their
job effectively, professional training, qualifications and curriculum content, in addition to the
challenges and obstacles to effective food safety inspections. Sample PHI interview questions
(see Appendix I) included the following: In terms of the food safety inspection, could you
Page | 64
please describe a typical inspection visit to a restaurant? (Props: from office to the inspection
site, preparation, proper equipment, inspection official document and reporting.) How do you
communicate with food handlers who don’t speak Arabic? What challenges have you faced in
restaurant inspection during the last five years? To what extent does existing food legislation
(food law, regulations, standards) support or hinder food inspection? Why? What do you think
that you and your colleagues need to change practice toward the risk-based approach? (Props:
skills, knowledge, training, equipment and resources.)
One of the primary topics (under knowledge and skills theme) in the interviews was the
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), which is an important area of knowledge
and skills to conduct risk-based food inspection. For this area, the questions were tailored
according to the specific work of the participants. For example, PHIs were asked if they have
knowledge about the HACCP principles and if they could evaluate a restaurant based on them
(see Appendix I). EHMs were asked what skills and knowledge a good PHI should possess
considering the HACCP principles (see Appendix J). The Diploma Coordinator was asked
whether the HACCP principles were taught in the previous secondary diploma or in the current
undergraduate diploma (see Appendix K).
The interviews with PHIs focused on:
work history and education, food safety inspection methods
description of a typical inspection visit to a restaurant, knowledge and skills in
food inspection, their experiences and training, and gaps in what they can or are
able to accomplish
their most significant food inspection issues in the last few years and
current practices during inspections, challenges and obstacles, job satisfaction
and expectations.
Page | 65
The interviews with EHMs focused on:
their expectations of the PHIs during the inspections, opinions about the current
inspection process
their most significant food inspection issues in the last five years, their beliefs
about what professional development PHIs need
their beliefs about the existing inspection approach and ideas on possible
improvements as well as future expectations based on changes in food safety
knowledge and inspection methods.
The interview with the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma in Riyadh focused on:
the qualification history and requirements for PHIs and differences (e.g.,
curriculums, admission requirements etc.) between the previous secondary
diploma and the current undergraduate diploma
general knowledge and skills that graduates (PHIs) are expected to possess with
a focus on the HACCP principles
current curriculum and the demands of modern food inspectorates
future expectations and changes to the curriculum based on changes in food
safety knowledge and inspection methods.
Double Translation Method
According to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
(NSECHR) and to ensure accuracy, fairness and respect to the study participants, the interview
questions (see Appendices 9, 10 and11) were initially created in English, then translated into
Arabic for use in interviewing the participants in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia where the native
language is Arabic and English is a second language (National Health and Medical Research
Council [NHMRC], 2007). The initial creation of the interview questions in English was
important, so that the questions captured the nuances of English language and culture through
Page | 66
clarity of meaning using correct grammar and spelling. The translated Arabic versions were
then used in the interviews to allow participants to speak spontaneously with the researcher as
Arabic native speakers, rather than using English to discuss their experiences (which might not
impart their true meaning).
Double translation is a method that involves initially translating the interview questions
from the primary language to the target language and then back to the primary language again
(Neuman, 2011; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011). Translation provides an extra challenge to the
researcher to achieve equivalence in concepts between the two languages. These difficulties
include finding a suitable translator to convey the same meaning in the two different cultures
and languages (Choi et al., 2012). Translating research instruments exacerbates the problems
of alternating between languages with different linguistic systems and the occurrence of poor
translations of items due to different cultural backgrounds. Translation problems and subjective
interpretations may also be biased and shift the translation, because words in the target
language may have no equivalent in the original language or might not convey the meanings
implied by a term (Behr, 2015; Harkness et al., 2004).
To minimise translation problems, expert consultation is needed to assess if a word or
several words reflect the same ideas or meanings in both the original and the adapted versions
of the research instruments (Guillemin et al., 1993; Herdman et al., 1998). This also ensures
research trustworthiness (Sperber, 2004; Squires, 2009). Moreover, as asserted by Sousa and
Rojjanasrirat (2011), the original instrument should be translated into the target language by at
least two independent translators. In this procedure, it is preferable that the translation be done
by someone who is bilingual and whose mother language is the target language (i.e., fluent in
the source and the target language). The two translators should also have different backgrounds
in both the content and the language format.
Page | 67
The first translator (the researcher) of the current study completed his Bachelor’s and
Master’s degrees in Australia, has a background and practical experience in food safety and
inspection in the target language and in the same country (Saudi Arabia). He is also an Arabic
native speaker who studied in Saudi Arabian schools and is familiar with Arabic phrases and
expressions as well as Arabic grammar and linguistic terms. As this is a PhD study, the
researcher had financial and time constraints; therefore, he conducted the first translation
process himself as a one-way translation method (translating the original questions into the
target language). The researcher then gave these Arabic interview questions to an Arabic native
speaker who is also bilingual. This translator is accredited as a professional translator and
interpreter who has been certified by the National Accreditation Authority. He translated the
Arabic interview questions back into English to ensure accuracy and proper wording. A high
degree of similarity was found between the two versions of the interview questions (see Table
4.1).
Table 4.1 Examples of the interview questions translation process
Interview questions in English Interview questions translated from English to Arabic by the
researcher
Interview questions translated from Arabic to English again
1/ How do you communicate with food handlers who don’t speak Arabic?
كیف تتواصل مع متداولي الغذاء 1/ والذین لایتحدثون العربیة
1/ How do you communicate with food workers who don’t speak Arabic?
2/ What challenges have you faced in restaurant inspections during the last five years?
/ماھي التحدیات التي واجھتھا خلال 2التفتیش على المطاعم في الخمس سنوات
الماضیة؟
2/ What challenges have you handled during restaurant inspections in the last five years?
3/ What skills do highly competent PHIs have?
ماھي المھارات التي یتمتع بھا /3 المراقب الصحي ذو الكفاءة العالیة؟
3/ What are the skills of a highly qualified PHI?
4/ What changes have happened to the curriculum?
ماھي التغییرات التي حدثت على /4 المنھج؟
4/ What were the changes that occurred to the curriculum?
Page | 68
The original English interview questions and the back-translated English interview
questions were compared to ensure that the format, wording and grammatical structures were
similar in meaning and relevance. Following this step, the two English versions were presented
to the supervisory team (who are English native speakers and research experts), and they
provided further insights about the construction of the research instruments and the clarity of
the interview questions. Thus, the research instruments used in the current study (developed
using well-established translation approaches) made the data more reliable and valid
(Reichenheim & Moraes, 2007).
Study Setting
As described in Chapter One, the study was conducted in Riyad, the capital city of Saudi
Arabia. It is located at the country’s centre and has the country’s largest population of “more
than 7 million” people (CDSI, 2015). In comparison with the other 12 main cities in Saudi
Arabia, Riyadh was an ideal place for gathering the needed data because it offered access to
the PHIs’ education facilities at the Technical College (TVTC) and the work place of the
Diploma Coordinator. Additionally, there are 11 Environmental Health Departments (EHDs)
within Riyadh. These departments have the largest number of PHIs (502 PHIs) (Emmad, F.
personal communication, May 10, 2015). Consequently, choosing Riyadh as the study location
will likely increase the chances of having a greater impact compared with studying other cities
in the country. More details are provided in following two sections.
Recruitment and Eligibility Criteria
According to Travers (2013), the composition of the sample size in qualitative
interviews is more important than the actual size of the sample. This aspect is consistent with
methodological considerations for the conduct of qualitative research as outlined in Section
3.1.3 of the NSECHR (NHMRC, 2007). This principle advises the researcher to recruit
participants with different roles and experiences to collect complex data about the
Page | 69
phenomenon. For instance, in addition to the main targeted population of this study (the PHIs),
other participants were also included, such as the PHIs’ managers (EHMs) and the PHIs’
educational institution (represented by the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma at the
Technical College of Riyadh). These participants were included in the study to obtain different
perspectives from PHIs and to understand their expectations about PHIs and the inspection
process. These different perspectives helped frame the data collection instrument of the second
phase of this research and the integration of the findings from both phases.
In 2005, the qualification requirement for PHIs in Saudi Arabia changed from a
secondary diploma to an undergraduate diploma (two and a half years after high school).
Hence, PHIs with an undergraduate diploma may have different points of view and levels of
knowledge compared to PHIs who hold secondary diplomas. To gain a broader perspective and
avoid missing part of the targeted population with different characteristics (which may cause
bias and affect the results), the researcher included two PHIs from each group. Further, to
ensure the required depth of theoretical and practical knowledge, a minimum of five years of
experience was another selection criterion for PHIs.
One of the obstacles for male researchers in Saudi Arabia is the lack of female
participation (particularly with interviews and recordings) due to cultural and religious factors.
Additionally, the NSECHR (NHMRC, 2007) states that the customs and cultural heritage of
research participants should be recognised and respected. For these two reasons, only male
participants were included in this stage of data collection.
Sampling
This research applied the ethical principle of fairness in the recruitment and selection
of participants. In compliance with the principles of the NSECHR (NHMRC, 2007), a data
collection approval letter was provided by the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
Page | 70
(MOMRA) (see Appendix B) indicating support and authorisation for the study. To avoid
unfair exclusion and to ensure that everyone could be considered, the main Environmental
Health Department at Riyadh Province Municipality provided the researcher with a list of the
names and workplaces of all PHIs (502 people) as the sampling frame. In accordance with the
ethical principles of respecting and minimising the risks of inconvenience from over-recruiting
for the four representative people needed, a random sample of only 20 PHIs were sent an
invitation to the qualitative interview. Randomised selection of 20 people was undertaken from
the complete sampling frame of all PHI names placed in an Excel program. Using the
randomised number function in Excel, the 20 PHIs with the highest random number were
visited by the researcher at their workplace. To facilitate informed consent, they were provided
with a printed copy of the invitation letter and information sheet containing all the necessary
information. PHIs who received the invitation letter and met the criteria were requested to
contact the researcher within three days to express their interest in participating. If the
researcher did not receive an adequate response within this period, the protocol provided plans
to invite another 20 PHIs from the randomised list. However, the second stage of recruitment
was unnecessary as seven PHIs from the first round of 20 invitations expressed their interest.
The first four of the seven who expressed interest subsequently provided consent and were
included in this study. Following the ethical principle of respect, the researcher expressed his
gratitude to the remaining PHIs for their interest in participating.
Although the sample size of four PHIs participants might be regarded as small,
however, the aim of these interviews in Phase 1 was not to generalise the findings or to
determine the frequency of the issues (which is the purpose of the of the quantitative study -
Phase 2) but, instead, to obtain a background about the current food inspection activities to
inform the development of the survey. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is unique in that it is an
absolute Monarchy and there is more consistency in approaches than would be expected in
Page | 71
countries which have significant diversity. Thus, interviews with four PHIs are likely to capture
the scope.
In addition to the four PHIs identified through random selection, three other participants
(two senior EHMs and a Diploma Coordinator) were identified using purposive selection.
Purposeful sampling is a widely used technique in qualitative and quantitative research for
identifying and selecting participants based on specific characteristics (Palinkas et al., 2015).
The two EHMs were selected because they have more than seven years of experience as EHMs,
so a high level of theoretical and practical knowledge is ensured. Further, these two EHMs
were known as being highly experienced in food inspection policymaking in Riyadh.
Regarding the Coordinator, there is only one relevant educational institute in Saudi Arabia (the
Technical College), which has two branches (the main branch is in Riyadh). This college
provides a Food Safety Diploma and the Coordinator of this diploma is the key person who can
provide useful information relevant to the PHI qualification program. Therefore, the
participation of the EHMs and the Coordinator in the data collection was significant.
The researcher contacted the EHMs and the Diploma Coordinator prior to the data
collection trip to undertake stakeholder engagement. After explaining the current research to
them, they expressed a preliminary agreement to participate in the study. Then, during the data
collection trip to Riyadh, the researcher visited them at their workplaces and provided an
information sheet about the study with a formal invitation. During these visits, they were given
the opportunity to ask any questions and the arrangements for the interviews were negotiated.
Semi-Structured Interviews
Interview preparation
Although the researcher was experienced in conducting interviews, the supervision team stressed
the importance of conducting the interviews at the highest quality possible to achieve the
Page | 72
objective of the project in accordance with Chapter 3 of the NSECHR (NHMRC, 2007). Hence,
the researcher participated in a mock interview with the supervisory team to practise and refine
his skills. The interview preparation process included refining specific interview skills and
developing awareness of the interviewer’s and interviewees’ body language. This procedure was
informed by established data collection research, which found that refining the researcher’s
interview skills through practice and appropriate techniques increases the quality of the data
received (Yanow & Scwartz-Shea, 2014).
Applying the supervision team’s feedback, the researcher practised and refined his interviewing
skills through two more mock interviews with two PhD students at the Faculty of Health at QUT.
Through reading the literature, following the supervision team’s feedback and practising through
mock interviews, the researcher became confident in his ability to conduct a high-quality interview
to ensure accurate data collection.
Interviews
In Phase One (see Figure 3.4) of this research, seven face-to-face semi-structured
interviews were conducted between June and July 2017 with the following individuals:
four PHIs from the different environmental health departments in Riyadh
two EHMs in Riyadh
the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma at Riyadh Technical College.
This type of interview was determined to be appropriate and effective to explore in
depth the participants’ personal experiences and to develop a thorough understanding of the
current situation of the PHI workforce, food inspection practices and the PHIs’ qualifications
(Creswell, 2014). This structure allowed the researcher to obtain the information needed to
achieve the aim of the study, while at the same time allowing the participants to talk about what
they believed to be important.
Page | 73
The interviews were conducted following ethical standards (see Section 3.5), the
principles described by Oltmann (2016) and the procedures for conduct described in the ethics
application. In accordance with the methodology, interviews were shaped by both the
interviewer and the respondent along with the circumstances of when and where the interview
occurred. Given the ease of accessing face-to-face interviews, phone or Skype interviews were
not needed. The subject matter was not sensitive, and it was unlikely that body language
affected data interpretation. The selection of the interview locations was based on the
participants’ preferences. The study was explained in detail to each interviewee and consent
forms were signed prior to the interviews. Each interview was in a private room and the average
length was one hour.
Before starting the interviews, all participants were informed that they had the right to
refuse to answer any question without explanation. Additionally, in accordance with Oltmann
(2016), the researcher did not take notes during the interview to be less distracting. While the
researcher did have a set of questions that every participant was asked, they were also asked to
tell stories to illustrate their points. Through these stories, the researcher gathered additional
data to support the study results. All interviews were recorded with the participants’
permission. The interviews were then transcribed by the researcher and each transcript was
later given to the participant for verification.
Ethical Consideration
Ethical clearance was obtained from the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee
(UHREC) approval number (1700000384) (see appendix A). Refer to Chapter 3 (section 3.5)
for more details about the ethical aspects of the research.
Data Analyses
Interview data were analysed using the thematic analysis approach. Braun and Clarke
(2006) define thematic analysis as a scientific technique for identifying, analysing and
Page | 74
reporting patterns within data. There are six steps in thematic analysis were used. This
involved, as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006), the researcher should begin by
‘familiarising himself with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing
themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report’ (p. 87). Thematic analysis
method is especially useful for exploring the perspectives of various study participants (i.e.,
PHIs, EHMs and the Diploma Coordinator), finding similarities and differences and
discovering unexpected insights (Nowell et al., 2017). Also, this method assists the researcher
in creating a clear and succinct final report (Nowell et al., 2017).
At the beginning of the analysis, the researcher read the seven transcripts several times
and immersed himself in these data, which provided an initial interpretation and answers to the
research questions (i.e., SQ3, SQ5 and SQ6); he then gave codes to these data that portrayed
the meaning. Codes were defined according to a word, phrase or paragraph that aligned to the
research purpose (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Yi, 2018). Inductive coding was applied, so that the
researcher created the codes without a preconceived idea about identifying the themes. Similar
codes were then grouped into categories, which were further developed into themes and
subthemes (see Table 4.2 for examples) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). At the end of the thematic
analysis process, the researcher generated a map (see Figure 4.1) that summarised the themes
and subthemes along with participants’ quotations (see Appendix N for full version). It was
difficult to translate all quotes in this map due to the limited resources available to conduct the
thesis. However, the important quotes were translated and included in the interpretation section
of this chapter.
Page | 75
Figure 4.1 Sample map of themes, sub-themes and participants' quotations
Trustworthiness
The aim of the work was to produce trustworthy findings. Trustworthiness means that
the study has results that are accurate in all aspects of data collection and results. To
demonstrate trustworthiness, researchers must show that the data analysis has been conducted
consistently, precisely and thoroughly by informing the reader of details about the process of
data collection and analysis. Establishing trustworthiness justifies the findings and adds to the
validity of the research. Components of trustworthiness include credibility, dependability,
transferability and conformability (Nowell et al., 2017).
Credibility
Ensuring credibility, an aspect of trustworthiness, requires the researcher to connect the
findings of the study with prior research and accepted research practice. This demonstrates the
truth of the research. The two most common forms of establishing credibility are triangulation
and member checking. Member checking can be considered a component of triangulation
Page | 76
(Hussein, 2009). This study established credibility by asking the participants to review their
interview transcripts to ensure accuracy—this is a concept known as ‘member checking’.
Member checking is important to establish the accuracy of any statements discussed in the data
(Hussein, 2009; Thomas, 2017). After participants reviewed their transcripts, they did not make
any corrections.
Dependability
Dependability establishes the study’s results as consistent, repeatable and aligned with
the primary data. One mark of a dependable study is that another researcher could analyse the
same process and draw similar conclusions (Graneheim et al., 2017). However, due to the
limited resources available to the researcher and to ensure the scientific principle of
reproducibility, the researcher conducted the analysis himself and provided sufficient details
of the methods. Additionally, the researcher has worked closely with the supervisory team to
ensure that the necessary information was included and that the findings were in conjunction
with the data provided by the study participants.
Transferability
To establish transferability, the researcher must provide evidence that the findings can
be applied from the setting observed to other situations, contexts and populations. Within
qualitative research, transferability—also known as external validity—is developing
generalisability or validity. Researchers cannot guarantee that a study can be applicable to other
research; the goal is to demonstrate that it could be applicable (Hussein, 2009). This study used
the method of thick description to establish transferability (Kim et al., 2017). This method is
commonly used by ethnographers, but it is also used by other types of qualitative researchers.
Using thick description requires the researcher to provide detailed information regarding their
research process, including data collection procedures and descriptions of where and when the
interviews occurred (see previous sections in this chapter). This approach also includes a clear
Page | 77
discussion of the cultural and social contexts present during data collection (see Section 3.5).
From the description provided by the researcher, the reader has a clear picture of the entire
research experience (Holloway, 1997).
Confirmability
Confirmability is usually established with credibility, dependability and transferability;
it occurs when researchers demonstrate that their findings are based on the information
provided by the research participants rather than any type of researcher bias (Amankwaa,
2016). To demonstrate confirmability, illustrative text in the form of direct quotations from
participants—which were translated from Arabic to English language (see next section)—were
provided to support the findings. Further, the collected data were interpreted based on the
participants’ expressions and the researcher’s understanding of the lived experiences of PHIs.
The researcher’s knowledge, having worked as a PHI for five years in Saudi Arabia, provides
a context in which to understand the experiences expressed by the PHIs in this study.
Additionally, the description should include details regarding data coding and a description of
what the themes mean. For this study, the researcher provided complete descriptions about the
aspects of coding, the creation of themes and the process of interpreting the data.
4.3. Findings and Interpretation
Introduction
The target population of the current study is the PHI workforce in Riyadh. Additionally,
two EHMs and the Food Safety Diploma Coordinator at Riyadh Technical College have been
included to obtain different perspectives and contextual information. Table 4.2 presents a
summary of the participants.
Page | 78
Table 4.2 Description of interview participants
This interpretation aims to provide a general understanding of current PHIs’ inspection
practices and the challenges they experience. Their level of knowledge and skills within
specific areas of risk-based inspection, their training and professional development, and their
qualifications will also be explored.
Based on the researcher’s general perception, the study participants showed that they
had knowledge and experiences relevant to the study’s objectives. Each participant had unique
experiences and thoughts to share in addition to the development of common themes that most
or all the participants discussed. They showed little hesitation in sharing information. It
appeared that they believed their story was important, and they were eager to contribute. In this
discussion, participants were given pseudonyms (except for the Food Safety Diploma
Coordinator who agreed to using his name). The interviews provided the researcher with a
thorough understanding of the current issues surrounding the topic of food safety inspection
practices and the PHIs’ qualifications. The participants were also able to share their academic
qualifications and personal work experience. The following section presents a description of
each participant.
Participants Qualification Years of experience
Two PHIs Secondary diploma 15 to 20 years
Two PHIs Undergraduate diploma 6 to 8 years
Two EHMs Bachelor in Veterinary Medicine 9 to 13 years
Coordinator of the Food Safety
Diploma
Master in Food Sciences About 25 years
Page | 79
Participant Descriptions
PHI Number One: Abd Al-Latif #1
Abd Al-Latif graduated from the Secondary Institute of Health Inspectors in 1997. In
his late 30s, he has worked as a PHI for over 20 years. His employment includes several
environmental health administration roles in Riyadh. Abd Al-Latif mentioned that the turnover
among many administrations at the city of Riyadh had given him unique experiences that few
other inspectors possess. From the beginning of the interview, Abd Al-Latif appeared
enthusiastic and answered questions without hesitation.
PHI Number Two: Fahd #2
Fahd has a diploma from the Secondary Institute of Health Inspectors that he earned in
1998. He has 15 years of experience as a PHI. He has worked at several environmental health
administrations in Riyadh. He also has experience working as the Vice Manager of the
Environmental Department. Before the interview, Fahd appeared unsure as it was his first time
to participate in an interview for a study. However, after the researcher reminded him that his
participation was voluntary and that he could stop or choose not to answer any question at any
time, he was relieved and proceeded with the interview without hesitation.
PHI Number Three: Yasser #3
Yasser differed from the other participants. He has less experience but has a higher
academic qualification. He is in his late 20s and has an Undergraduate Diploma in Food Safety
that he obtained in 2008, two and a half years after high school. He has eight years of experience
as a PHI. All his experience has been for the same department. Before beginning the interview,
Yasser was quiet and appeared anxious. It was revealed during the interview that he was not
satisfied with the current state of food safety inspection, and he was slightly nervous about
sharing that.
Page | 80
PHI Number Four: Othman #4
Othman also holds an Undergraduate Diploma in Food Safety. He is in his late 20s and
has six years of experience in food safety inspections. He has worked in three different
environmental health departments in Riyadh. Othman’s ambition was evident during the
interview; he reported having goals to pursue additional studies in the field but did not have
that opportunity within Saudi Arabia (and the same could be said for his colleagues). After
completing his undergraduate diploma in 2009, he travelled to the United States to study at his
own expense. He completed English language studies but was unable to continue for financial
reasons; he then returned to Riyadh. Othman showed enthusiasm during the interview and
eagerness to further develop his food safety inspection skills.
EHM: Falah #5
Falah has a Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine—a degree held by many Saudi Arabian
EHMs. He has 13 years of experience as the Assistant General Manager of Quality and
Development at Riyadh Province Municipality in addition to his EHM position. He contributed
to a food safety inspection developmental project in Riyadh. This project resulted in the
implementation of new technology in food inspection and within the field inspection system,
which is currently used. Although very busy, he agreed to participate in the study as he has
many ideas to further develop the field of food safety inspection and PHIs. He is also concerned
about the current food safety inspection system.
EHM: Sami #6
Sami received his Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine in 2008. He worked as an Assistant
Manager of Environmental Health for two years and then as an EHM for seven years, totalling
nine years. He also has a second job as the Assistant General Coordinator of the 11
environmental health departments in Riyadh. His interview was useful and informative. It
Page | 81
lasted one hour and 20 minutes, which was longer than the other interviews that lasted an
average of an hour.
Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma: Khalid #7
Mr Khalid is 50 years old and has 25 years of experience working in the food safety
education field. He graduated in 2010 with a Master’s in Food Sciences and completed a
bachelor’s degree in the same field in 1990 at King Saud University. He is currently employed
as the Coordinator of the Undergraduate Food Safety Diploma (the current PHI qualification
prerequisite) at the Technical College in Riyadh. Prior to this, he was the Coordinator of the
Secondary Diploma (the previous PHI qualification prerequisite) from 1990–2005. In 2005,
the secondary diploma changed to an undergraduate diploma, and its name changed from the
Health Inspection Secondary Diploma to the Food Safety Diploma. Additionally, Mr Khalid
was a senior member of the Curriculum Development Committee of the Food Safety Diploma.
He also worked as one of the promoters for the change from an undergraduate diploma to a
bachelor’s degree. This interview informed the researcher about curricula, teaching methods
and the PHI qualification program over the past 25 years.
Emerging Themes
The emerging themes developed through the thematic analysis methods were areas that
were common between the majority or all the participants. These themes also related directly
to the primary and secondary research questions identified in Chapter 1 (i.e., PQ1, SQ3, SQ5,
SQ6). For each of the major themes, the researcher provided support, detailed explanations and
quotations based on the data obtained from the participants. Through the thematic data analysis,
four major themes emerged:
1. knowledge and skills
2. training and professional development
Page | 82
3. education and qualifications
4. challenges and obstacles.
Within each of these themes, several subthemes were identified (see Table 4.3 at the
end of the next section for samples of themes, subthemes and participants’ quotations). Some
of these subthemes overlapped, even though the type of work differed among the participants
(PHIs, EHMs, the Food Safety Diploma Coordinator). This overlap will be discussed within
the interpretation of the data in the next section.
Interpretation
Theme One: Knowledge and Skills
PHIs play a significant role in the Health Protection Domain (see Figure 2.3) within the
Three Domains of the Public Health Model (Griffiths et al., 2005). In terms of food safety (an
important aspect of health protection), PHIs are required to protect the public from foodborne
illnesses (FBIs) by conducting regular inspections and ensuring that restaurants are safely
preparing and serving food for public consumption. Ensuring effective food safety inspections
is linked to PHIs’ abilities in terms of knowledge and skills. For instance, the successful
implementation of risk-based food inspections is heavily dependent on the PHIs’ skills and
knowledge (FAO, 2008; Jones et al., 2004; Newbold et al., 2008). According to the FAO risk-
based knowledge and skills framework (previously discussed in Chapter 2), PHIs should
possess adequate knowledge and skills within specific areas such as laws and regulations, the
HACCP principles and communication to enable them to conduct risk-based inspections.
In the interviews, the PHI participants were asked questions to evaluate the extent of
their knowledge and skills related to risk-based food inspection. The findings link directly to
the primary and secondary research questions (see Chapter 1), which cover the knowledge and
skills that PHIs in Riyadh require to conduct risk-based inspections and issues that prevent
them from performing effective inspections and enforcing food safety laws and regulations.
Page | 83
From the theme of knowledge and skills, four subthemes were developed: the HACCP
principles, communication, laws and regulations, and foods from different cultures.
Subtheme 1: The HACCP Principles
The individual responses of the PHI participants about their understanding of the
HACCP principles differed based on their specific qualifications. For instance, the PHIs who
completed a secondary diploma (the PHI qualification prerequisite prior to 2005) did not know
the HACCP principles as they had received no training on them during their course. In contrast,
the undergraduate diploma (the current PHI qualification prerequisite) provides some
information about the HACCP principles, but it lacks extensive details. It was reported that the
HACCP principles were only studied simply and superficially. Therefore, in-depth discussions
about HACCP and its seven principles were not possible during the PHI interviews. For
instance, PHI participant Abd Al-Latif #1, who holds a secondary diploma, stated:
I have never studied the HACCP, and I’m almost sure that all my colleagues who hold
the secondary diploma do not know anything about it. We heard about it at work, but
we do not know its nature or how it works.
The other PHI participant who holds the secondary diploma, Fahd #2 shared the same
perspective regarding the HACCP. He stated, ‘I don’t remember that we studied HACCP
during the diploma, and I have no background about it.’
PHI Yasser #3, who holds an Undergraduate Diploma in Food Safety, discussed the
HACCP principles. He stated, ‘I remember that we took it during the diploma. We studied it
and hazard evaluation, but in a simple way. To be honest, now I really don’t know anything
about it because we do not need it at work.’ The other PHI participant who holds the same
undergraduate diploma also discussed the understated way that the HACCP principles were
addressed during his studies, Othman #4 added, ‘I only know HACCP as a topic and that it is
a risk based approach but I can’t recall any further information about it.’
Page | 84
One of the EHMs (Falah #5) supported the perspective that the PHIs are not required
to evaluate food establishments based on the HACCP principles. He stated, ‘We’ve got
restaurants that apply the HACCP system, but the PHIs cannot evaluate it because they are not
qualified’. Khalid #7, who is the ex-coordinator of the secondary diploma and the current
coordinator of the undergraduate diploma, concurred with other participants:
The HACCP principles never existed as course material for the secondary diploma, but
it has been added in later years. The secondary diploma curriculum wasn’t changed for
15 years from 1990 to 2005; however, the HACCP principles have now been simply
added to the current undergraduate diploma.
Considering participants’ comments, PHIs lack knowledge and skills regarding the
HACCP principles and evaluating restaurants based on these guidelines. Logically, if PHIs
have little to no knowledge of the HACCP principles, they cannot accurately inspect restaurants
based on these requirements. According to the FAO framework (2008), the HACCP is risk-
based and needs to be understood by the PHI to be able to identify food safety hazards and
eliminate the risk of FBIs. Therefore, if the expectation is that restaurants implement the
HACCP system, PHIs must have extensive knowledge of its components. In addition, if
restaurants do not implement the HACCP system, the FAO framework recommends that the
PHIs should have an adequate understanding of the HACCP principles and inspect the
restaurants based on these principles. Further, PHIs are advised to utilise their inspection visits
to promote the application of the HACCP principles.
Based on the above participants’ comments, it’s evident that even with the changes and
developments that the undergraduate diploma curricula are undergoing, the HACCP
component is not receiving the focus during instruction that it should. Since the HACCP
principles provide important knowledge and skills necessary to conduct a risk-based
inspection, those seeking a PHI qualification diploma should not only learn the HACCP
Page | 85
principles in a class, but every class should include case examples of the HACCP principles as
applicable to the specific class content.
Subtheme 2: Communication
As the discussions with the study participants about PHIs’ knowledge and skills
progressed, issues regarding communication skills became apparent. According to the FAO
framework (2008), communication is a crucial competency falling under the knowledge and
skills required to conduct a risk-based inspection. During the interviews, when the PHI
participants were asked if they experienced any communication difficulties during their
inspection visits (such as when communicating with restaurant workers and operators), issues
regarding language barriers were reported. For instance, while English is a common language
in Saudi Arabia, Arabic is the first and the official language. There are also many foreign
employees, most of which are non-Arab countries, within the restaurant and food industry in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. As such, some restaurant operators speak English, Arabic, English and
Arabic, and some speak a different foreign language. All PHI participants agreed that they had
experienced problems with language barriers. PHI Abd Al-Latif’s #1 said:
Sometimes, I confront a problem in delivering the information with non-Arabic
speakers. My English skills are poor, and maybe the restaurant worker speaks neither
Arabic nor English, so we are unable to talk to each other, and I sometimes use sign
language. In some cases, I realise that the worker does not understand me, but the
worker appreciates what I’m doing.
PHI Othman #4 highlighted the importance of communication:
If I’m not able to communicate with workers in restaurants, I write notes in the visitor
log, so that the owner can review them and talk with their employees to convey the
information. It’s disappointing that you cannot deliver what you want to say, and you
just give them the fine and leave.
Page | 86
The PHI participants’ responses revealed that their current communication practice is
not effective in correcting current food safety violations and preventing any possible future
food safety concerns. If restaurants simply pay the fine for a food safety violation and workers
do not learn what needs to be corrected regarding the violation due to communication issues,
the significant role of PHIs in the Health Protection Domain (see Figure 2.3) of protecting the
community by decreasing the occurrence of public health incidents (i.e., FBIs) becomes
ineffective (Griffiths et al., 2005). Although restaurant managers or owners who pay the fine
may inform employees what the fine was for, this could be miscommunicated to employees or
without the necessary detail that leads to improvements in food safety and reduces the risk of
FBIs. Conversely, when PHIs can communicate directly to restaurant staff during the
inspection visit, staff can learn from the PHIs, which should be a key source of food safety
information. The goal should be to improve food safety and protect community health, not
merely collect money from fines. However, the above statements from both PHIs demonstrate
their desire to do their job well. Indeed, all the PHI participants repeated this desire to find a
way to communicate to perform their job as best they could.
Further, their managers, the EHMs, also had their own perspective on the
communication issue. One of the EHMs, Falah #5, spoke about the communication issue from
the restaurant owner’s perspective, which is often shared with him in his management role:
Sometimes the restaurant owners come to my office to review a fine and talk it through,
and they assure me that they don’t know what goes wrong. The PHI just gives them the
fine and leaves without correcting or explaining the fault that they have got themselves
into so that they can avoid it in future.
This is a conflict between PHIs and restaurant staff and owners. It demonstrates that restaurant
workers and owners want to do things correctly, yet they struggle due to communication
challenges. PHIs have the same frustrations. However, one of the EHMs, Falah #5, considered
Page | 87
that it was the PHIs’ responsibility to resolve the lack of communication due to language
barriers. It was seen as their responsibility to ensure proper communication. He stated, ‘The
English language level of the PHIs is inferior, and with this cultural diversity in the country
and the increasing number of international restaurants and foreign labour, the PHI has to be
able to speak English to facilitate the communication process’. Falah #5 also raised another
concern: ‘There are some food products that have their contents written in English, and so the
PHIs couldn’t read or evaluate them’.
Based on the discussions with the EHMs and PHIs, it is clear that communication
challenges are inhibiting the correction of food safety violations and preventing future
improvements in food safety. Both restaurant workers and PHIs desire improvements but are
experiencing difficulties in communicating with each other. A new method of communication
should be developed to ensure that PHIs and restaurant staff and owners can communicate
effectively.
Subtheme 3: Laws and Regulations
As the discussions with the study participants continued, concerns about the
understanding of the regulations governing food safety were raised. In every country, laws and
regulations are enforced in many fields of practice. In the food industry, food inspection ought
to be enforced under the mandate of, and in accordance with, the legislative framework of the
laws governing a country (FAO, 2008). In the interviews, participants were asked to discuss
their perspective on the laws and regulations, which is an essential area of knowledge and skills
outlined in the FAO framework of risk-based food inspection (FAO, 2008). Common issues
that arose from the interviews were lack of clarity in regulations, outdated laws and the need
for laws to protect PHIs while performing their duties.
EHM Sami #6 reported, ‘Because of the lack of clarity in some regulations, the PHI has
to ignore some violations during the inspection’. He added:
Page | 88
Some requirements related to food safety are not available; for instance, we don’t have
among the regulations about the safe way to unfreeze chicken. Sometimes we have to
contact other authorities personally, such as the Saudi Food and Drug Authority, to
retrieve such information.
The PHIs also supported this idea of a lack of clear information. For example, PHI Abd Al-
Latif #1 commented, ‘There is a lack of some regulations that support the PHI in performing
his duties. For example, the regulations that are concerned with meat grilling to medium and
reheating food such as macaroni and lasagne.’
Considering the above responses, the lack of clarity among PHIs regarding food safety
regulations is a significant concern. For instance, the lack of clarity leads to some PHIs ignoring
some regulations, which results in persistent food safety violations in restaurants. Such
instances of ignorance or disregard of food safety violations pose a significant food safety risk
in the public sphere. According to the FAO framework (2008), PHIs must have a clear grasp
of the food and safety regulations in their country since that knowledge is vital in empowering
their inspections. Further, the lack of adequate information on food and safety regulations
impacts on their practice and may lead to legal consequences.
Lack of clarity about food safety regulations is also linked to the theme of
communication discussed above—in terms of communication between EHMs and those
working in the Saudi Food and Drug Authority. EHMs should communicate with the Food and
Drug Authority when issues around clarity of regulations arise. The EHMs could then create
revisions and communicate the changes with PHIs. This issue of communication with the Food
and Drug Authority from the perspective of PHIs and EHMs should be further investigated.
Another point was made by PHI Fahd #2 about many of the regulations being outdated
and difficult to change:
Page | 89
The regulations that we follow are somehow old. Some of them were issued 15 years
ago, and there are few changes within them. They don’t take the PHIs’ opinions into
consideration. The regulations need to be updated, and there should be flexibility in
future updates in addition to taking into consideration the views of the people involved.
PHI Yasser #3 concurred:
The regulations need to be updated to catch up with pace … There’s a point. There’s
no strict punishment for the one who commits a violation repeatedly in a short time. It
is supposed to be doubling in punishment if it happens again, and there should be a
lawsuit if it happens frequently.
It appears that the municipal authorities (where EHMs and PHIs work) are not being
reactive towards the field challenges faced by the PHIs. The connection between those in the
field (EHMs and PHIs) and the food safety policymakers at the municipal authorities needs to
be more clearly analysed to determine the best way to overcome the identified challenges with
the current laws and regulations.
Another required update to the laws and regulations was reported by a PHI participant:
Sometimes the restaurant owner impedes and prevents the PHIs from checking a certain
room inside the restaurant because it has a tremendous number of food safety violations.
And he is ready to pay a simple amount of money to hinder the inspector’s duty, but he
doesn’t open that room because it contains a lot of violations, and it has fines that
amount to more than the ‘inspector hindering’ violation fine. The regulations have to
be updated to solve such problems.
This statement demonstrates that hazardous health and food safety issues can occur that are
often not corrected because the restaurant owner is able to pay a fine. The regulations need to
be revised to empower PHIs to access everything within the premises. It is also evident that
consequences other than a simple fine need to be implemented. When serious food safety issues
Page | 90
exist that can harm public health, PHIs should be able to forcibly close the establishment until
proper corrections are made. For instance, some developed countries have successfully
implemented legal actions that involve closing non-compliant premises. In the United
Kingdom, PHIs frequently visit food outlets without an appointment to investigate whether the
owners are upholding food safety regulations; they also take strong enforcement actions on
non-compliant premises such as seizing unsafe foods, serving a legal notice or prosecution
(FSA, 2020). In the United States, defaulting food premises are closed down, and their owners
are suspended from carrying out their business until they meet the necessary legal obligations
or correct the violations (DC.gov, 2020).
Some violations might not warrant immediate closure. For instance, restaurant
inspection reports contain field notices, priority violations or priority foundation violations.
Such violations should be corrected by the owner within a specific time frame or legal action
is taken against them (DC.gov, 2020). Therefore, in less serious circumstances, a list of
violations and a correction plan should be discussed with the owners—with the expectation
that everything will be corrected by a specific date, or the business will be shut down.
The participants also expressed concern about insufficient legal protection for PHIs.
EHM Sami #6 said:
Some PHIs work hard, but the fear of not being legally protected discourages them from
doing their job. Two weeks ago, one of the PHIs had a problem with a restaurant owner.
The owner swore at the PHI, and he submitted a lawsuit to the authorities. I was
surprised yesterday as they called me and told me that the PHI had been arrested and
driven to the police station.
Both PHI and EHM participants reported that a legal department was needed to support
the PHIs to ensure that they could perform their duties without repercussions when they found
violations. For instance, according to Yapp and Fairman (2006), when PHIs enforce food and
Page | 91
safety regulations in food establishments in the United Kingdom, they experience a lack of
trust in the food safety legislation from the business’s owners. This lack of trust may lead some
food business investors to consider that they are being targeted or that the investigation is
biased (Yapp & Fairman, 2006). Such claims affect the PHIs’ performance since threats and
other forms of intimidation from the owners of the offending premises discourage them from
performing their duties. Therefore, the need to protect PHIs is warranted as it will empower
them to take action regarding food safety concerns on any food establishment regardless of its
status or the influence of its owners.
Subtheme 4: Foods from Different Cultures
The participants were also asked about foods from different cultures. This topic arose
when the PHIs and EHMs were asked about the challenges they encounter in food safety
inspections. Three of the PHIs mentioned that they had difficulty with foods from other
cultures, as they had little knowledge about the safety requirements of those foods. PHI Yasser
#3 summed up this issue:
My colleagues and I face difficulty checking the safety of food that comes from
different cultures. Sometimes, we even feel that we don’t have adequate food safety
information about foods from our own culture, then how about foods that come from
different cultures.
As PHIs lack food safety knowledge about these foods from other cultures, they have
created their own ways of inspecting them. PHI Othman #4 described his inspection approach:
‘If I saw a food that I don’t know how to inspect, such as Asian, Italian or Western, I would
judge it just from the smell’. Such a method is not a scientific approach to inspecting the safety
of food.
EHM Sami #6 also commented on this issue:
Page | 92
I always receive enquiries from the PHIs about some food from different cultures with
a strange aroma, should we dispose of it or not. To be honest, we don’t do anything, I
tell the PHI to leave them because we know nothing about it.
This finding is supported by Pham (2010), who reported that the lack of food safety information
and knowledge about foods from different cultures was a prevalent issue among PHIs in
Canada. As such, the lack of food safety information is a significant issue that needs to be
conveyed to the relevant administrations and policymakers. Regulations need to be updated,
and proper training should be provided to PHIs to inspect the safety of those foods effectively.
Theme Two: Training and Professional Development
Continuous training and professional development are essential for career development.
In the food safety field, training of PHIs is important since the food industry undergoes many
developments (such as the new method of inspection, the risk-based inspection approach).
Thus, professional development enables a person to regularly attend to important areas of
career development and take appropriate action to reduce any shortfalls in their knowledge
(Halton et al., 2015). Professional development also allows a person to compete positively with
others in the same line of duty. Organisations benefit from having a workforce where all
employees are motivated to learn, enhance their skills and make more significant contributions
to the organisation’s success.
The interviews with participants addressed the theme of training and professional
development. The findings relate to the secondary research questions highlighted in Chapter 1:
issues that impede PHIs from conducting effective food safety inspections, training and job
satisfaction, and how these characteristics could be improved. The analysis of participants’
responses led to the creation of three subthemes: lack of motivation, scarcity of training
opportunities and the failure of training to target PHIs’ needs.
Page | 93
Subtheme 1: Lack of Motivation
The PHI participants expressed a lack of motivation in attending the training. PHI
Yasser #3 stated, ‘Attending training and workshops used to be one of the factors that was
formally considered by the department to get a job promotion as PHIs. It was a big motivation
for us to attend further training when opportunities were available.’ Another PHI Othman #4
mentioned, ‘Unfortunately, after applying a new administrative system, we won’t benefit from
the training in counting points for a job promotion. This is very frustrating for me and my
colleagues and has affected our performance.’ EHM Falah #5 sums up this disconnect: ‘The
PHI misses three main things, and I mention it in every meeting with the municipal leaders and
policymakers: motivations, training and logistic service availability’. These statements indicate
that the higher administration at the municipal authority is not in touch with the PHIs; the
authority does not take the PHIs’ demands into account.
From these responses, it seems that the absence of professional development incentives
has affected PHIs’ job performance as they are demotivated. According to Hariyati and Safril
(2018), continuous professional development increases job satisfaction as employees become
motivated to climb the career ladder, which promotes better performance. Therefore, training
and professional development incentives need to be provided to the PHIs to increase their
motivation and job satisfaction.
PHIs are not currently rewarded for obtaining further training past their qualification
diploma. EHM Falah #5 explained:
There’s no specific mechanism or training plan to improve the PHIs’ knowledge and
skills, it’s just personal efforts from us as managers. Sometimes we hold a training
course inside the work building, but unfortunately, there aren’t a sufficient number of
PHI attendants because there are no motivations to attend.
Page | 94
For PHIs to sacrifice their time and spend it on training and professional development, the
rewards should be a job promotion, better pay and increased responsibilities. Without these
rewards, the current situation will continue to deteriorate. For instance, the previous theme of
PHIs’ knowledge and skills revealed significant knowledge gaps in the HACCP principles,
communication, laws and regulations, foods from different cultures, and keeping abreast of
food and safety and inspection developments. These gaps could be resolved through ongoing
training and professional development. However, PHIs’ lack of motivation to attend training
could hinder them from improving their knowledge and skills in implementing risk-based
inspections. Moreover, this lack of motivation could be a significant barrier to knowledge use
within the Knowledge-to-Action framework (see Figure 2.4), which needs to be addressed
(Graham et al., 2006).
Subtheme 2: Scarcity of Training Opportunities
Along with a lack of motivation, PHI participants report having few opportunities for
additional training. PHI Fahd #2 stated, ‘The training opportunities are few. Although there are
no motivations to attend, I have been trying for two years to get training, but I haven’t
managed.’ This demonstrates that even if PHIs have the motivation to attend additional
training, they are unlikely to receive training opportunities. Such an outcome is supported by
PHI Othman #4 who states, ‘Training courses aren’t available for all PHIs, and if you manage
to get one, then it’s just luck’. The costs of not providing access to training or other learning
opportunities can be high; the affected employees fall further behind over time, and they may
be less able to advance (DiPietro et al., 2011). However, this has to be considered in
conjunction with the lack of motivation mentioned above. If PHIs are offered training, they
may not attend as there is no benefit. When people do not attend, there is no reason to offer
training.
Page | 95
Subtheme 3: Failure of Training to Target PHIs’ Needs
In addition to the other challenges around training and professional development, there
is also an issue with the relevance of training to PHIs’ needs. PHI Yasser #3 explains:
Unfortunately, there is nothing new within the training course subject I attended before.
Its content was the same as what we studied in the undergraduate diploma. The only
difference is that they deal with you as an employee not a student.
PHI Othman #4 echoed this view:
Training courses, if found, have irrelevant content that doesn’t satisfy our actual needs.
For instance, the course ‘The Method of Behaving with Managers’, which is currently
available to PHIs, I don’t need it as much as specialised training in food safety issues.
PHI Yasser #3 mentioned another concern about targeting needs, and talked about the need for
specialised training when first starting the PHI job:
The PHI must be reoriented when first employed. I was unemployed for two years after
graduation, and I forgot many things that I had learnt during my studies. When I got the
job, I was deployed to the field and made food safety inspection visits without
preparation.
This need for induction training when just starting the job is also necessary for another reason.
As PHI Abd Al-Latif #1 explains, ‘All training courses are oral in the form of lectures, and
there are no applied or practical ones. The data pointed to the inspector’s opinion on the content
is not taken into consideration.’ For PHIs to do their job accurately and effectively, they must
have hands-on training that addresses their specific needs (Newbold et al., 2008). EHM Falah
#5 stated:
The authorities who provide courses for the PHIs and other government employees,
such as the Institute of Public Administration, the Technical College and Saudi Aramco,
do not take our opinions as managers into consideration in the course content or
Page | 96
coordinate with us. They just provide random courses. Some training course topics and
their contents are not renewed, and few PHIs attend those courses. PHIs who attended
found out that it was the same as the one they attended four years ago.
EHM Sami #6 gave a specific example of this issue:
Some time ago, we sent the Ministry a proposal to develop training courses for PHIs,
and we provided a list of the required training based on the needs of PHIs. However,
the proposal was declined as they claimed that it was not our specialty, but it was the
responsibility of the Institute of Public Administration.
It is concerning that those who provide the training, demonstrate little interest in listening to
the PHIs about what training courses they need to perform their food safety inspection duties
better.
The last issue regarding training and professional development is the challenge of
municipality providing new protocols and technology that PHIs are expected to use but no
training is provided. EHM Falah #5 stated, ‘The electronic field system, ‘Raqeb’ was provided.
It is an electronic inspection system, but the PHIs haven’t been trained to use it.’ This
demonstrates the significant lack of a systematic approach towards the PHIs’ training and
professional development. Therefore, the current PHI training approach may require an
overhaul to ensure that training is properly emphasised and adequately resourced.
Theme Three: Education and Qualifications
PHIs’ education and qualification requirements vary from one country to another and
sometimes by organisations within a country (see Table 2.2). In Saudi Arabia, the PHI
qualification requirement before 2005 was a secondary diploma. This changed in 2005 when
the program was expanded to a two-year undergraduate diploma with three months of field
training after secondary school (tvtc.gov.sa, 2016). This undergraduate diploma is managed by
the Technical and Vocational Training Corporation. The quality of education directly affects
Page | 97
the PHIs’ reliability. Thus, the questions from which this theme developed covered the benefits
that PHIs received from their qualifications in their daily food safety inspection work as well
as their opportunities to pursue studies. From these questions and based on the participants
data, two subthemes emerged: the curriculum of the PHI qualification program and barriers in
pursuing education.
Subtheme 1: The Curriculum of the PHI Qualification Program
PHI Othman #4, who holds an undergraduate diploma (the current qualification
prerequisite), stated:
I took a course within the undergraduate diploma in food manufacturing and another
one in meal planning, and they don’t have any relation with my work as a PHI because
a part of it was in the field of nutrition and the other part was about inspecting factories.
Neither of them is within the list of my duties as a PHI at the municipality. I evaluate
my benefit from the curriculum at 30 per cent.
Abd Al-Latif #1, who has a secondary diploma (the qualification prerequisite prior to 2005)
had a similar perspective. He said, ‘I believe that a great deal of what we studied does not have
a relation with the work reality. We study something and work another thing. Studying
Mathematics, Algorithms and Chemistry for instance.’ It is important to recognise that the
purpose of these questions was to ascertain their thoughts about how the curriculum related to
their jobs. The value of the curriculum as a whole, such as ascertaining the value of
Mathematics and Chemistry, was not discussed. It is common for degree students to have to
take general education classes (such as Mathematics, Science, Literature and other subjects) to
create a well-rounded education. In the response from the undergraduate diploma holder, the
crucial aspect is that the food and safety classes did not relate to his work. It is these classes
that should relate to the real work that students will be doing when they finish their studies.
Page | 98
However, another PHI, Yasser #3 (who holds an undergraduate diploma) had a different
perspective:
I believe that the curriculum is good as a whole, and we benefited from some courses
in our fieldwork. For instance, the course ‘Inspection Criteria’ provided us with the
rules and regulations that we need in our daily work. As for the English language
curricula, there were two courses, but there might be dereliction from the students in
learning it. In addition, not practising English language in our daily life makes us forget
it.
The Diploma Coordinator Khalid #7 revealed another significant concern. He was
asked to talk about the difference in curriculum between the secondary and undergraduate
diplomas. He said, ‘There has been no change in the curriculum of the Secondary Diploma of
Health Inspection since its establishment in 1990 to 2005’. He added:
The first review of the curriculum occurred when the undergraduate diploma was
created 1426H (2005) in order to prepare the new diploma. After that, another review
was done in 1434H (2014), but some of them were executed in 1438H (2016). In the
meantime, another review is taking place.
The curriculum continues to be revised. Data from the PHIs’ participants indicated that some
topics and subjects that would be helpful were not taken into consideration. Based on the
Coordinator’s data, there has been no change in the secondary diploma curriculum for 15 years.
This may have contributed to the lack of knowledge and skills of PHIs who hold this diploma,
which was evident from their responses under the knowledge and skills theme (the first theme
of this interpretation section). New research findings and inspection methods relevant to food
safety have not been added to the curriculum for this lengthy duration.
Additionally, the PHIs appeared frustrated about the teaching methods used by
instructors. The Diploma Coordinator Khalid #7 informed the researcher of this issue:
Page | 99
The teaching method hasn’t been changed in either the secondary or the undergraduate
diploma, which is the conventional method of teaching just from one side. The trainee’s
evaluation is a joint process between the organisation under which the trainee trains and
the cooperative training coordinator at the Technical College. We have also got another
problem as the supervising organisation on training (i.e., the municipality) does not care
about evaluating the PHI under training, and they consider the trainee as a burden. And
we cannot press on these directions because their work in supervising the trainee is
voluntary.
By this comment, it could be interpreted that students are earning their diplomas but do not
have the practical knowledge and skills to perform their food safety inspection job
immediately. It appears that both the curriculum and the pedagogical approach need to be
revised to better match the needs of food safety diploma students. Further investigation about
the curriculum and the pedagogical approach is beyond the scope of this project. However, it
is proposed that the teaching approach and the cooperative training of PHIs deserve further
investigation.
Subtheme 2: Barriers to Pursuing Education
As identified earlier, training opportunities are difficult for the PHIs to access. This
appeared frustrating for those PHIs who have ambitions to advance their careers and learn more
about their career choice. In addition to the difficulties in receiving training, they also have
barriers in pursuing education. PHI Fahd #2 stated, ‘The PHIs must be developed by allowing
them to continue graduate studies in the field. I know a lot of PHIs who would like to pursue
their studies, but obstacles such as the admission requirement prevent them from doing so.’
EHM Falah #5 provided additional information regarding pursuing studies for PHIs:
The Public Health Faculty at the Electronic Saudi University contacted us to provide
and organise further qualification opportunities for PHIs. They cooperated with us by
Page | 100
replacing some difficult admission requirements such as the International English
Language Testing System (IELTS) criterion (which is considered as a barrier for
interested PHIs) with easier English course requirements in the study plan. It’s a
wonderful thing but since a couple of months ago, there has been a new system in which
if a government employee gets a new qualification during their work life, it is useless
in terms of job promotion. And that’s a disappointing matter because getting a benefit
from the qualification is an important motivation in pursuing studies.
The Food Safety Diploma Coordinator also had an opinion, as he should, regarding
PHIs’ education. He reported:
There are requirements to turn the current undergraduate diploma into a bachelor’s
degree. The higher administration asked us to announce the opening of admissions to
find out the number of interested PHIs who would be willing to continue their study
taking into consideration a sufficient number to open such a program. But few PHIs
came to register. I think the TOEFL admission requirement, which is an international
English language assessment, was an obstacle. And I think that’s why few came to
register, and the bachelor program was then declined.
Additionally, he stated, ‘There will be another obstacle for the PHIs. The Bachelor Degree in
Food Safety won’t be free of fees like the current diploma.’ This is true even though education
in Saudi Arabia is free and university students receive a monetary stipend during their studies
(Allahmorad, 2020). While additional courses in English will certainly help the PHIs to do their
work better—such as communicating with foreign food handlers, reading food labels and the
like—there might be no advantage in requiring PHIs to pass a highly advanced English
assessment (such as TOEFL) for admission. This would be an additional barrier for PHIs to
obtain a higher degree and improve their knowledge and skills. This highly advanced English
requirement could be replaced by other proper English courses options that attract PHIs to
Page | 101
continue their education, achieve a higher degree (e.g., Bachelor) and improve their
competency. This would be similar to other developed and developing countries where most
PHIs hold bachelor’s degrees in a field related to food safety (Johnson et al., 2014; Maldonado-
Simán et al., 2019).
Theme Four: Challenges and Obstacles
The challenges and obstacles PHIs experience while working were an obvious concern
for most participants (some of these challenges were partially discussed in the previous theme
as the topics are interrelated). All PHIs and EHMs talked about challenges and obstacles openly
indicating they held concerns before the interview. These issues impede PHIs from conducting
effective food safety inspections not just with the current traditional inspection approach but
also with risk-based approach implementation in future. From the broader topic of challenges
and obstacles, four subthemes developed: the efficiency of the field system ‘Raqeb’, the PHIs’
devices storage case, the annual evaluation of PHIs and transport difficulties.
Subtheme 1: Efficiency of the Field System Raqeb
Through the participants’ responses, a common concern was identified: the notion that
leaders in the municipalities who make decisions are not acknowledging the needs and
suggestions of those working in the field. Raqeb is an electronic field system developed to
assist PHIs to perform their duties. PHI Fahd #2 said, ‘The electronic field system Raqeb needs
to be improved, and they should take the inspector’s opinion into consideration. They didn’t
take our opinion when they first introduced it to us. Therefore, disadvantages appeared. It even
sometimes hinders the inspector’s work.’ Two other PHI participants supported this need for
development. Abd Al-Latif #1 said, ‘Raqeb is a successful system, but it needs improvements’.
Similarly, PHI Othman #4 commented, ‘Raqeb is an excellent system, but it needs to be
updated based on our remarks and suggestions’.
Page | 102
As the PHIs work directly in the field and are the main users of the Raqeb system, they
have the most knowledge of how it works. However, they have suggested that their opinion is
not sought by leaders in the municipalities. The PHIs report that there are many obstacles with
the system that could be corrected to enable them to do their jobs more accurately and
efficiently. Every PHI participant had a different example of these obstacles. PHI Yasser #3
said:
Distribution of the shops is done randomly in Raqeb, and there are six shops and
restaurants a day to inspect. The problem is that some days I have simple and small
shops or restaurants allocated to me by the system, which require less effort with the
inspection. And on some other days, I have a lot of pressure with very large restaurants
that need a lot of time and effort to inspect properly. This issue affects performance and
decreases our concentration as we try to finish faster.
This obstacle was echoed by PHI Fahd #2:
Every day we have five or six shops to inspect, and sometimes the first shop allocated
to me is far from the second one, and you know the traffic in Riyadh city. It might take
an hour or an hour and a half to reach the next shop. The problem with Raqeb is that it
doesn’t give us shops close to each other, and this consumes our time and affects the
inspection quality.
PHI Othman #4 also expressed this concern: ‘I suffer from Raqeb and the location. One time,
I stopped my car at the location given by the system and started to look for the shop, but I found
it on the next street.’ Similarly, PHI Fahd #2 mentioned: ‘Sometimes, we go out to the assigned
location, but we find that it has been closed and its license has been revoked’.
The PHIs are frustrated and have strong feelings about the daily challenges they
experience with the Raqeb system. According to their responses, Raqeb is supposed to be a
reliable system that makes its food inspection duties easy. However, several issues hinder its
Page | 103
efficiency. This in turn affects the inspection process as the PHIs are assigned to the wrong
premises, which hinders the quality of food safety inspections.
EHMs, however, have a more positive view regarding the Raqeb system. EHM Falah
#5 stated:
One advantage of the Raqeb is solving the problem of punctuality in inspections
because it is electronic. In 2007, we worked on overall checking the shops, and we
found that 40 per cent of the restaurants hadn’t been visited for the last five years.
EHM Sami #6 supported this idea:
Raqeb has made a paradigm shift in the work of inspection. It gave approximately equal
rates in inspection visits. In addition, it disintegrated bullying by some PHIs on certain
shops or laziness in inspection and just visiting the nearby shops.
It seems from the EHM participants’ responses that the Raqeb system has some advantages
that increase the overall efficiency of the food safety inspections. The challenges that were
identified above could easily be overcome through program revisions. However, if leaders in
the municipalities (the key role player in regulating food safety to protect community health
within the Health Protection Domain, see Figure 2.3) are not listening or seeking feedback
from the main users (the PHIs), it could be concluded that revisions are not made to address
the PHIs needs. This could prevent PHIs from conducting effective food safety inspections.
Subtheme 2: PHIs’ Devices Case
A devices case (bag) is given to each PHI. It includes five different food safety
inspection devices that are used to determine food safety and quality and collect food samples
if needed. EHM Falah #5 reported, ‘Devices have been provided to the PHIs, but the PHIs
don’t use those devices’. Knowing this certainly gives a different perspective on the
interpretation. PHIs have expressed frustration that they often lack what is needed to do their
Page | 104
jobs correctly, yet they are given tools to help them. The following PHIs’ comments settle this
conflict.
When PHI Othman #4 was asked about the devices case, he remarked, ‘The case is too
big just like the travel bag and inconvenient to carry, and it includes tools that we do not need
daily such as a sample reservation refrigerator’. PHI Abd Al-Latif #1 stated, ‘The devices need
to be upgraded and calibrated, and we need to take training courses on how to use them’.
Similarly, another PHI said, ‘We haven’t had training on how to use them’. This, adds support
to the training issues raised during the discussion above and reflects a recurring concept that
has emerged throughout this interpretation: the idea that PHIs are not provided with what they
need (e.g., training in using some devices) to perform their job accurately and efficiently. The
higher administration believes that they are providing helpful tools to the PHIs. However, they
do not communicate with the PHIs to obtain their input, and they do not provide proper training
on using the tools. As a result, these tools are not always what is needed. It appears that the
lack of PHIs’ training in using these devices—and the lack of PHIs’ training in general—is an
issue that the EHMs understand, but solving this issue is beyond their control.
Subtheme 3: Annual Evaluation of PHIs
A concern emerged about the annual performance evaluation of PHIs. Fahd #2
remarked, ‘The PHIs’ annual evaluation report is unfair and doesn’t involve the inspector’s
productivity’. In addition, EHM Sami #6 explained, ‘The PHIs’ annual evaluation report has
some problems that frustrate the PHIs. For instance, 80 per cent of the PHIs’ work is in the
field, but the annual report form criteria only focus on office work.’ This is an important finding
as it potentially contributes to a lack of motivation (as discussed earlier under the theme of
lacking motivation regarding advanced training). PHIs know that there is no reward for being
productive, and unproductive PHIs can still receive good work evaluations. There appears to
be a lack of motivation to work their best in the field because of the improper annual report
Page | 105
criteria. The most important component of a PHI’s work is completed in the field through food
safety inspection visits, so the annual report should primarily focus on this area. Updates could
be done on the performance review process by considering the needs of PHIs and the nature of
their work. As argued by Nelson (2000) and DeNisi et al., (2006), for a performance appraisal
to be successful, it must consider the demands and expectations of the employee because this
will generate a sense of fairness, which is itself a huge motivator.
Subtheme 4: Transport Difficulties
First, it was reported that there was a shortage of cars provided by the department for
PHIs to use during their work hours. Further, PHI Othman #4 stated, ‘Even the current work
cars provided by the department are not insured, so if the PHI had a car crash, he has to repair
it at his expense.’ This concern was echoed by another PHI participant who said:
Some PHIs don’t go for inspection visits for months because their work cars are
damaged and need to be repaired. They request to get their car fixed from the services
department at the municipality, but they are not responsive. I sometimes use my own
private car for work.
Additionally, he commented about the problem of paying for petrol: ‘They give us just 100
litres a month, and this isn’t sufficient as we go out daily for inspection visits. The means of
transportation is a challenge, and the PHI pays from his own wallet.’ This contributes to the
lack of motivation experienced by PHIs and demonstrates a lack of support from the
administration to the PHIs. When inspectors must use their own funds to perform their role,
there is a significant problem (although it is recognised that not all PHIs will have concerns
about using their own finances or vehicles). To determine the effects among the PHI workforce
and food safety inspection procedures in Riyadh, the transport difficulties and the other
identified challenges and obstacles have been considered in Phase 2 of the current study, the
online survey. Further discussion is provided in Chapter 5.
Page | 106
These are all concerns that have been mentioned in the interviews within the context of
the challenges and obstacles theme. Most of these challenges are points of serious frustration
for PHIs and could be eliminated or minimised through better communication and relationships
between the different stakeholders (i.e., policymakers, municipal leaders, EHMs and PHIs).
Table 4.3 provides samples from the themes and subthemes discussed above along with
quotations from participants.
Table 4.3 Samples from the themes and sub-themes
Themes Subthemes Quotations from participants Knowledge and Skills
Laws and regulations The HACCP principles Communication
‘Because of the lack of clarity in some regulations, the PHI has to ignore some violations during the inspection.’ (EHM Sami #6) ‘The regulations that we follow are somehow old. Some of them were issued 15 years ago, and there are few changes within them. They don’t take the PHIs’ opinions into consideration.’ (PHI Fahd #2) ‘We’ve got restaurants that apply the HACCP system, but the PHIs cannot evaluate it because they are not qualified.’ (EHM Falah #5) ‘Sometimes, I confront a problem in delivering the information with non-Arabic speakers. My English skills are poor, and maybe the restaurant worker speaks neither Arabic nor English, so we are unable to talk to each other, and I sometimes use sign language. In some cases, I realise that the worker does not understand me, but the worker appreciates what I’m doing.’ (PHI Abd Al-Latif #1)
Training and Professional Development
Lack of motivation Scarcity of training opportunities Failure of training to target PHIs’ needs
‘There’s no specific mechanism or training plan to improve the PHIs’ knowledge and skills, it’s just personal efforts from us as managers. Sometimes we hold a training course inside the work building, but unfortunately, there aren’t a sufficient number of PHI attendants because there are no motivations to attend.’ (EHM Falah #5) ‘The training opportunities are few. Although there are no motivations to attend, I have been trying for two years to get training, but I haven’t managed.’ (PHI Fahd #2) ‘Training courses, if found, have irrelevant content that doesn’t satisfy our actual needs. For instance, the course ‘The Method of Behaving with Managers’, which is currently available to PHIs, I don’t need it as much as specialised training in food safety issues.’ (PHI Othman #4)
Education and Qualifications
The curriculum of the PHI qualification program
‘There has been no change in the curriculum of the Secondary Diploma of Health Inspection since its establishment in 1990 to 2005’. He also said, ‘The first review of the curriculum occurred when the undergraduate diploma was created 1426H (2005) in order to prepare the new diploma. After that, another review was done in 1434H (2014), but some of them were executed in 1438H (2016). In the meantime, another review is taking place.’ (Diploma Coordinator Khalid #7)
Page | 107
Barriers in pursuing education
‘The PHIs must be developed by allowing them to continue graduate studies in the field. I know a lot of PHIs who would like to pursue their studies, but obstacles such as the admission requirement prevent them from doing so.’ (PHI Fahd #2)
Challenges and Obstacles
Efficiency of the electronic field system Annual evaluation of PHIs
‘The electronic field system Raqeb needs to be improved, and they should take the inspector’s opinion into consideration. They didn’t take our opinion when they first introduced it to us. Therefore, disadvantages appeared. It even sometimes hinders the inspector’s work.’ (PHI Fahd #2) ‘The PHIs’ annual evaluation report has some problems that frustrate the PHIs. For instance, 80 per cent of the PHIs’ work is in the field, but the annual report form criteria only focus on office work.’ (EHM Sami #6)
4.4. Conclusion
Summary
In this phase, qualitative data were gathered through seven semi-structured interviews
with four PHIs, two EHMs and the Food Safety Diploma Coordinator. The aim was to
understand the current situation of the PHI workforce, including their daily food safety
inspection practices, the barriers and difficulties they experience, and issues with their
qualifications and training. The transcribed data of the interviews were analysed using the
thematic analysis method, and four major themes emerged: knowledge and skills, training and
professional development, education and qualifications, and challenges and obstacles.
Generally, the PHIs’ responses showed that they lack understanding in several
knowledge and skills areas that are essential for conducting risk-based food inspection as
outlined by the FAO knowledge and skills framework (Section 2.7.2), such as the HACCP
principles, communication, and laws and regulations. The PHIs’ responses regarding their
understanding of the HACCP principles differed based on their qualifications. PHIs who hold
secondary diploma did not know the HACCP principles; as it is not taught in the secondary
diploma. Those PHIs who hold the undergraduate diploma provided a few details about the
principles of HACCP, as it was taught in the undergraduate diploma but only in a superficial
way. However, all PHIs (holding either qualification) lacked the ability to conduct restaurant
Page | 108
inspections based on the HACCP elements. Communication is another important area of
knowledge and skills. All PHIs experienced problems when communicating inspection results
to restaurant workers because of language barriers. This is a significant issue as it is inhibiting
the PHIs from communicating food safety information and correcting any identified food safety
violations. PHIs’ lack of understanding of the HACCP principles and their communication
difficulties could hinder their ability to conduct effective risk-based inspections.
Regarding training and professional development, all PHIs advised there is a significant
lack of training opportunities offered to them. Few training opportunities are available, and
when available, they do not meet their needs. This lack of regular and up-to-date training could
explain the identified lack of knowledge and skills among the PHIs. Further, the PHIs’
responses indicated that they do not have the motivation to attend training courses. This is
because attending training will not result in any benefits to them in terms of job promotions or
any other rewards. This lack of motivation could be a significant barrier to knowledge use
within the Knowledge-to-Action framework (see Figure 2.4) because the gaps in PHIs’ risk-
based inspection knowledge and skills could be resolved through ongoing training, but the PHIs
need to be motivated to attend.
The challenges and obstacles the PHIs experience during their work were discussed
during the interviews. Two common issues were explored. First, the participants discussed the
efficiency of the electronic field system Raqeb, which is the electronic system developed to
assist the PHIs in performing food safety inspections. All PHIs mentioned that the system needs
to be updated based on their feedback to increase the efficiency of food safety inspection visits.
Second, the criteria of the PHIs’ annual evaluation report are deemed unfair as the PHI’s
productivity is not considered. This is an important finding as it possibly contributed to their
recognised lack of motivation, knowing that an unproductive PHI can still have a positive
annual work evaluation. The PHIs expressed that these issues could probably be addressed if
Page | 109
the municipal leaders listened to their feedback on the Raqeb system and the annual evaluation
report.
Throughout the interviews, a recurring challenge emerged: the municipal leaders/higher
administration are unresponsive to the feedback and the needs of PHIs. If the administration
and decision-makers (who play an important role in the Health Protection Domain, see Figure
2.3) were open to feedback from the PHIs working in the field (important frontline players in
the Health Protection Domain) and the corresponding revisions were made, the food safety
inspection practices could be improved. This would make a significant difference in the safety
of food at restaurants, thus protecting the community from FBIs.
Limitations and further research
The qualitative interviews identified significant issues, experiences and challenges
about the current food safety inspection practices in Riyadh. As the intent of these seven semi-
structured interviews was to understand, and not infer, generalisations cannot be made based
on the findings of this phase alone. The responses obtained from participants may not be
representative of the larger population of PHIs in Riyadh. Additionally, according to the
NSECHR (NHMRC, 2007), the customs and cultural heritage of the participants should be
respected. As such, only male participants were involved in this data-collection process, which
resulted in gender bias. Another limitation is that not all nine areas of risk-based inspection
knowledge and skills were discussed in the interviews. Only the major areas (such as HACCP,
communication, and laws and regulations) were discussed. This was due to the interview time
limitations as several other issues needed to be covered. To address known limitations, the
researcher conducted the further research as an online survey (Phase 2 of this research). These
limitations necessitated a representative survey of all PHIs, male and female, in Riyadh to
explore whether the needs and perceptions identified in these interviews were representative of
Page | 110
PHIs across Riyadh. Further, all the knowledge and skills areas were further investigated in
Phase 2 of this research (the online survey in Chapter 5).
In conclusion, this qualitative study identified key aspects of the current situation of the
PHI workforce including a lack of understanding in several knowledge and skills areas essential
for conducting risk-based food inspections. This research, with its known limitations, identified
key themes, thereby establishing the groundwork for further surveys and analyses as described
in the remaining chapters of this thesis.
Page | 111
CHAPTER 5: STUDY TWO – CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY
5.1. Introduction
This chapter focuses on Phase 2 (Figure 3.4) of this sequential exploratory study and
comprises the quantitative component. The aim was to explore and investigate the composition
of the current PHI workforce in Riyadh, their perceived levels of knowledge and skills in risk-
based food safety inspection including issues that prevent or impede PHIs from performing
their job effectively (see research questions and objectives sections 1.4 and 1.5).
The qualitative insights collected and discussed in the previous Chapter (Phase 1,
Figure 3.4) enabled the identification of issues and problems with the food safety inspection
practices and PHI workforce in Riyadh, as perceived by the participants of the semi-structured
interviews. The identification of possible problems and issues by the interviewees participating
in the qualitative study provided a basis to explore whether some of these issues were prevalent
in a much larger group of participants and enabled the identification of related factors. An
important goal of the quantitative study presented in the current Chapter was two-fold:
Firstly, based on the previously collected qualitative information (see Chapter 4),—
the FAO knowledge and skills framework (see section 2.7.2), and the Knowledge-
to-Action (KTA) framework (see section 2.7.3)—a valid survey instrument was
designed to collect quantitative data from a large cohort of PHIs in Riyadh,
including the demographic characteristics of PHIs and their perception regarding
their knowledge and skills in risk-based inspection, the legislative and regulatory
framework, professional training and motivation/satisfaction, etc.
Secondly, the collected data were analysed quantitatively (see below in this
Chapter) to confirm and statistically characterise the potential problems and issues
indicated by the qualitative study, including the identification and quantification of
the effects of a variety of demographic, legal and workplace factors on the
Page | 112
knowledge and skills of PHIs, their motivation at the workplace, professional
training and PHIs readiness for the expected transition to a risk-based food
inspection approach.
The first part of this chapter presents the study methods including description of the
study design, survey development and translation process, piloting the survey, inclusion
criteria, recruitment strategies, administration of the survey and analysis methods associated
with the study. Subsequently, this chapter presents the results of the study and then the chapter
concludes with a discussion of these important findings.
5.2. Methods of Phase 2 Description of the Study Design
The current study uses a quantitative cross-sectional design for collecting data by
employing an online self-administered questionnaire. This approach to data collection was
chosen to reach, and collect extensive data from, a large number of PHIs in Riyadh. The pre-
set questions in the questionnaire tool enabled coherent and targeted responses from a large
sample of participants to the specific issues that were regarded to be of a particular interest for
the study and the developed research questions (i.e., PQ1, SQ2, SQ3, SQ4, SQ6). Subsequent
comparative analysis of the obtained database is conducted using statistical methods. The
quantitative analysis is typically used to compare responses from different groups of
participants in the considered PHIs cohorts, and for the establishment of any significant
relationships between variables or groups of variables measured by the survey instrument. The
development of a valid and useful survey instrument often requires prior knowledge or
expectation of which questions should the participants be asked, and these questions should
also be linked to the considered research questions and aims (see section 1.6) of the project (De
Vaus, 2001). Such an approach is used in this study to determine and characterise the
Page | 113
perceptions of PHIs regarding their knowledge and skills in risk-based inspection, including
any barriers and obstacles encountered on the way towards improvement of inspection
practices and adoption of the risk-based inspection approach.
Survey Development
Several questions are usually considered prior to drafting survey questions. The
following are some questions that may be initially posed: ‘Why should I utilise a survey?’
‘What specific knowledge or information do I wish to acquire?’ ‘Can this data be gathered by
other any other methods?’ ‘What kind of information do I have to collect?’ As Weisberg, et
al., (1996) suggest, any research must begin with an objective, and the more complete the
research objectives, the greater is the likelihood of constructing a stronger survey. The current
study’s objectives have been articulated through the six research questions in Chapter 1. These
questions were partially answered in Phase 1 of the research; however, these responses were
elicited from a sample of 7 of participants. A survey enables responses to be captured from a
larger group of PHIs and can examine relationships between perceptions about their knowledge
and skills of risk-based food inspection, training and professional development and various
job-related challenges.
As there was no existing or suitable survey addressing the research questions outlined
in this thesis, a new survey was developed and constructed using the following two resources:
1- FAO knowledge and skills framework; that is, the Risk-Based Food Inspection
Manual developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nation (see chapter 2 section 2.7.2)
2- Information gathered through the semi-structured interviews at Phase 1 of this
research (see chapter 4).
Page | 114
The questions relating to knowledge and skills (see Appendix L, items 1 and 2) were
developed based on the nine areas of knowledge and skills identified in the FAO knowledge
and skills framework (FAO, 2008). These nine areas are considered essential for PHIs to
undertake risk-based food inspection. Analysis of responses from Phase 1 (semi-structured
interviews) were also used to create items; for instance, PHIs’ perceptions about the current
efficiency of training programs available to PHIs (see Appendix L, items 3 to 11). Also,
questions were created relating to PHIs’ perceptions about different challenges and obstacles
that affects their job performance and the efficiency of food safety inspection (see Appendix
L, items 12 to 16). Further, the developed items related to PHIs’ training programs and the
challenges and obstacles were considered useful in the identification of the potential barriers
and facilitators to knowledge use within a KTA framework Figure 2.4 (Graham et al., 2006).
The developed closed-ended questionnaire consisted of 23 items including checklists,
ranking questions, and two-choice/multiple-choice questions. A Likert scale was utilised to
measure the strength of PHIs’ perceptions. Likert scales often provide an effective way to
measure the strength of response in social studies research studies (Hair et al., 2007) rather than
yes/no or agree/disagree responses. The Likert scale, which ranges from 1 to 6, has a middle
point (Neutral/Indifferent) instead of the extremities of excessive agreement. Respondents also
find it difficult to provide their opinions when encountering scales with values greater than six
or seven points (Dawes, 2008). Consequently, they are more likely to choose random answers
if a researcher presents them with more than 7 points (Dawes, 2008). Therefore, the choice of
the ranges from 1 to 6- point Likert scale for the survey items was chosen.
After the creation of the survey items, they were reviewed by the supervisory team and
approved after several modifications were made to be clearer. Additionally, according to the
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NSECHR) and to promote and
ensure respect, accuracy and fairness to participants, and increase the response rate, the
Page | 115
developed survey was constructed in the English language (see Appendix L), then translated
into Arabic (see Appendix M) which is the native language of the targeted participants
(NHMRC, 2007).
Double Translation Method
An initial translation of the survey questions from the source language (English) into Arabic
(the first language in Saudi Arabia) was conducted by the author. The translated survey was
then checked by four Saudi PhD students in QUT in the area of public health, one of whom is
specialising in food safety. Then, a double translation of the interview questions was used (see
section 4.2) (Neuman, 2011; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011). The output indicated that the
translation reflected a high similarity level between the two English versions of the survey
questions, that is, the English and Arabic surveys were a good match in wording. Table 5.1
presents a sample of the compatibility of the final Arabic and English survey questions.
Table 5.1 Sample of survey question translation process
Survey questions in English Survey questions translated from English to Arabic by the
researcher
Survey questions translated from Arabic to English again
1/How confident are you with your current knowledge of the following topics?
ما مدى ثقتك في معرفتك ومھاراتك 1/ الحالیة للمواضیع التالیة؟
1/How confident are you in your current knowledge of the following subjects?
2/In terms of food safety, how important do you consider each of the following issues?
فیما یتعلق بسلامة الأغذیة ، ما مدى 2/ أھمیة مراعاة كل من القضایا التالیة؟
2/Regarding food safety, how important is it to consider each of the following issues?
4/Would you be interested in attending a training course even if there is no reward?
ھل ترغب في حضور دورة تدریبیة 4/ حتى لو لم تكن ھناك مكافآت؟
4/Would you like to attend a training course even if there is no reward?
Piloting the Survey
Construction of the survey involved a pilot study which allowed any problems and
benefits to be identified (Bryman, 2004; Balnaves & Caputi, 2001). Bell (1999) claimed that a
Page | 116
pilot study should be conducted on the gathered data to ascertain whether all research questions
are clear and remove any items that do not yield usable data. Moreover, Cresswell (2012)
indicated that conducting a pilot study for survey construction aids in determining whether the
participants can understand and complete the survey. Consequently, the survey was also trialled
to verify the participants’ level of comprehension and understanding.
There are several methods that can be used to identify the minimum sample size for a
pilot study. Hill (1998) suggested that a sample of 10 to 30 would be sufficient for a pilot study.
The questionnaire was piloted with a small group of targeted participants to ensure the
effectiveness of the questionnaire. The survey was distributed to 15 PHIs in Riyadh for testing
in the actual environment to ensure the quality and efficiency of administration of the
questionnaire—four of the participants were the same PHIs interviewed in Phase 1. The
rationale for choosing the same four people was that convenience sampling is generally used
during a pilot study due to its easy accessibility, whereas random sampling is typically used
during the final data collection for parametric statistical testing (Fraenkel et al., 1993). In
addition, the participants who were interviewed in the first phase of the research were familiar
with the research purpose. Therefore, they were able to provide feedback related to the
interview-specific information to develop the survey items.
Changes to the Survey after the Pilot Study
Several amendments were made to the survey based on the feedback from the
participants. For example, six participants responded to a question in the ‘Communicate
Inspection Results’ section —‘How confident are you with your current skills?’—indicating
that they were confident in their communication skills except with restaurants workers who
only spoke English (not Arabic). The question created some confusion for them, and the
researcher consequently added a question related only to their English knowledge and skills
Page | 117
and another question related to their communication skills (see questions 2. J, K and L,
Appendix L).
Communication with food handlers and business operators is an essential skill needed
by PHIs to conduct their work effectively (e.g., Communication of food safety information,
inspection results). This feedback provided an insight, allowing the researcher to add another
question to the survey related to difficulties in communication to help assess the significance
of this issue. The question ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statements’ ‘Whenever I meet food handlers who speak a different language from my own, I
find it difficult to communicate food safety information to them’ (see Question 12.A,
Appendix L).
Further feedback related to Question 6 in the survey, ‘Do you manage your own
professional development?’. Seven participants responded to this item, indicating that the
question was not clear, and it could be improved by providing some examples. The researcher
amended the question and added an example to make the question clearer— ‘Do you manage
your own professional development? (e.g., training, reading scientific articles)’ (see Question
6, Appendix L).
Eligibility Criteria
PHIs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia have several environmental health responsibilities, such
as food safety inspection, licensing, inspecting non-food premises. The focus of this cross-
sectional study was limited to PHIs (502 PHIs in total) who conduct food safety inspection in
Riyadh. Several criteria for the participants and organisations were included in this study.
These criteria can be grouped under two sections as outlined below:
Participants criteria:
o All Public Health Inspectors (PHIs)
o PHIs who conduct food safety inspection
Page | 118
o Male and Female
o All different ages.
Organisations criteria:
o Working across the Environmental Health Departments (elven
departments in total) including the General Department of
Environmental Health (GDEH) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
o Under the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA).
Recruitment Strategies
The PHIs participants were recruited in accordance with ethical approvals and as
follows:
After obtaining the data collection approval from the Ministry of Municipal and Rural
Affairs (see appendix 2), the PHIs were invited to complete the online survey through two
methods:
1- Their work emails. Invitation via an email circulated to the PHIs, inviting them
to participate in the research.
2- Existing PHIs groups in WhatsApp messenger. WhatsApp is the primary means
of communication in Saudi Arabia with 73% of its population being active users
(Clement, 2019). PHIs generally use WhatsApp rather than email to
communicate. The author was added to the WhatsApp group by the admin of
each group after visiting them personally at their workplace in Riyadh city. This
was necessary as sending out by email only might result in a lower response rate
and also a potential selection bias.
A Participants Information Sheet (PIS) was provided with the invitation (see Appendix G
and 8) along with the online survey link. Participants were reminded about the voluntary
Page | 119
nature of their participation. They were also informed that they could withdraw from the
participation at any stage before clicking on the submission button at the end of the online
survey.
The survey was available in Arabic to be accessed by the PHIs for a five-week period
between December 2018 and January 2019. The first reminder of the invitation was sent
through email and WhatsApp two weeks after the first invitation, and the second reminder
was sent five days before the end of the duration.
Administration of the Survey Using Key Survey
Key Survey is very convenient because it is easy to use and provides extensive features
to help develop and distribute online surveys. It also provides a place where data can be
collected in a secure environment, which contributes to protecting participants’ identity and
the confidentiality of their responses. The online survey, which included 23 multiple choice
questions, rating scales and dropdown menu questions deemed appropriate because it was
more convenient than a hard copy survey for the following reasons:
1. Provides the highest level of convenience for the respondents as it enables them to
answer the questionnaire according to their own pace, chosen time, and preferences.
Thus, increasing the response rate.
2. Easier and faster to capture a larger sample.
3. Management of the data collection process could be stored in one place without danger
and eliminating the possibility of human error.
4. No cost was required for printing, papers, pens, and envelopes to post the surveys via
mail.
5. Key Survey was designed and formatted for use with Excel and SPSS software allowing
for the analysis of data to be easier and more accurate.
Page | 120
Ethical Considerations
Ethical clearance was obtained from the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee
(UHREC) approval number (1700000384) (see Appendix A). See section 3.5 for more details
about the ethical aspects.
Data Analysis
The analysis of quantitative data was undertaken using SPSS version 24. Nine items
were used to measure inspectors’ confidence in areas of knowledge required for their jobs, and
an average score of these items was calculated to form a ‘knowledge’ scale. Twelve items were
used to measure inspectors’ confidence in areas of skill required for their jobs, and an average
score was also calculated to form a ‘skill’ scale. The Cronbach’s alpha of these two scales
indicated that they had high internal consistency (see results section below). Descriptive
analyses of these two scales were performed by gender, education, years of experience and
municipality. Knowledge and skill were then regressed on these variables to determine and
examine any significant effects of such variables on the perceptions of knowledge and skills
by the participating PHIs. Similar analysis was performed for motivation. Descriptive analysis
of motivation was performed by gender, education, years of experience and municipality,
followed by regression analysis.
Descriptive analysis on whether a PHI received training was examined by gender,
education, years of experience, municipality and motivation. Logistic regression was then used
to examine relationships between receiving training (dependent variable) and gender,
education, years of experience, municipality and motivation as the independent variables. An
association between gender and municipality was examined using a chi-square test and
association between the item ‘My qualification program prepared me well for a real-life health
inspector job’ and education level was examined using ANOVA. Chi-square is appropriate for
examining association between two categorical variables (e.g., yes or no). The question on
Page | 121
qualification was measured using a Likert scale, hence ANOVA is appropriate as the test
examines whether there is a statistical difference between the means. Given the sample size of
about 300 individuals, the distribution of the mean score was assumed to be approximately
normal because of central limit theorem (Casella & Berger, 2002).
The use of parametric methods, such as ANOVA and regression, for the analysis of
Likert scores variables is often debated in the literature (Sullivan & Artino, 2013). For example,
for ANOVA, one concern often raised is the ability to meaningfully draw inference from a
mean value resulting from a Likert score (0, 1, 2, 3, etc) which is not a continuous variable and
has defined upper and lower bounds (Norman, 2010). Norman (2010) argued that these
critiques are unfounded when the sample size is reasonably large as the normality of the
sampling group mean can be guaranteed by the Central Limit Theorem (CLT), a statistical
theorem proved by the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace two hundred years ago
(Fischer, 2010). According to the CLT, the group mean of a series of identical and
independently distributed random variables (such as individual score from a Likert scale) will
follow a normal distribution, regardless of the shape and distribution of the original random
variables. Such results have been consistently demonstrated analytically and through
simulation in numerous standard mathematical statistics textbooks (e.g., Larsen & Marx, 2017;
Casella & Berger, 2021).
For this study where ANOVA was applied, the distribution of the target variables was
unimodal and measured with a 5-point scale. These variables were also independent and
identically distributed, and the sample size of the current study was close to 300. Therefore, all
the conditions of the CLT have been satisfied and the CLT guarantees that the distribution of
the group mean of the target variable resembles a normal distribution even if these variables
were measured with a 5-point scale and have defined upper and lower bounds. A further
Page | 122
assumption of ANOVA relates to equal variances (between groups). In this study, we found
the variance between groups for the target variables to be similar.
For the multiple regression analysis, the key variables were knowledge and skills, and
these two variables were constructed from the mean score from multiple questionnaire items.
One concern raised for taking a simple average was that each item is weighted equally. This is
a valid concern when the number of items is small (e.g., 3 or 4 items), the items are measured
with different scale or the internal consistency of the items is low (Cronbach’s alpha < 0.7)
(Tabeachinck et al.,, 2007; DiStefano, Zhu & Mindrila, 2009). In this study, knowledge and
skills are calculated from nine and twelve items respectively. All of the items were measured
using the same response scale, and the internal consistency of both knowledge and skills are
high (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8). Therefore, averaging the items to form a scale was acceptable
and appropriate. Further, a sensitivity analysis was performed by dichotomising both
knowledge and skills, and repeating the regression analysis using logistic regression analysis.
Similar conclusions were found using both methods, demonstrating the robustness of the
analyses.
Where statistical regression models with multiple independent (predictor) variables
were developed, pair-wise interactions between the involved predictor variables were also
considered to provide further insight. Although all possible pair-wise interactions were
considered and checked using Bonferroni correction in each of the developed models, only
statistically significant interactions were retained in the final models (and the tables showing
the model outcomes – see below). This is the standard statistical approach to ensure that no
significant interactions have been missed in the multiple (linear or logistic) regression models
(Freund, et al, 2006). Any significant interactions were subsequently interpreted in order to
understand their meanings in the context of the conducted analyses and the existing food safety
environment in Riyadh.
Page | 123
5.3. Results
5.3.1. Introduction
This analysis is based on the results of a survey completed by Public Health Inspectors
(PHIs) working in the eleven different municipalities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All the
inspectors in Riyadh, a total of 502 (the sampling frame), were invited to participate in the
study by completing the survey. A total of 426 (84%) inspectors started the survey and 301
completed and returned it resulting in a 60% response rate. Unfortunately, no relevant
information was obtained about those PHIs who did not complete the survey, and this did not
allow an examination of whether there were particular groups less likely to participate. The
125 participants who started the survey but did not complete it were excluded because they
failed to provide valid data for analysis and only answered the first one or two questions. No
relevant demographic information was obtained about these participants, as the demographic
questions were placed at the end of the survey instrument (Appendix L). Another reason for
exclusion was the lack of required consent to participate as submitting the completed survey
was considered as consent for participation in this study. Also, the responses to the last open-
ended item in the survey, ‘Please provide any additional comments you would like to mention’,
did not provide valid comments to analyse apart from success wishes and prayers to the author
which is culturally understood.
5.3.2. Demographics
An important part of the survey instrument was to obtain the relevant demographic
information about the study participants, which is essential for an adequate interpretation of
the quantitative findings. Evaluation and comparison of the findings for distinct demographic
groups enabled valuable insights into the characteristics of the available sample of PHIs and
summary statistics of their responses. Therefore, this section presents the demographic
characteristics of the respondents (Tables 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3).
Page | 124
The majority (n=259) or 86% of the study participants were male, with only 13% of the
respondents being female (n=40) (Table 5.3.1). This difference is possibly due to the
undergraduate Diploma in Food Safety in Saudi Arabia being available only to males, and that
female PHIs have different educational backgrounds and a limited range of responsibilities
(e.g., inspecting female businesses) due to different cultural and social factors. Age was
categorised into four groups with the largest number of participants being between 30 and 39
years old (63%), followed by those between the ages of 18 and 29 years (24.9%), 40 through
49 years (9.6%), and 50 through 59 years (1.3%). This age distribution of PHIs is significantly
different from what typically occurs in some developed countries (Johnson, et al., 2014; Pham,
et al., 2010), where the typical age of PHIs is significantly higher—see the Discussions Chapter
for more detail. For further information about the considered sample of PHIs, the 2-test was
used to obtain the distributions of percentages of male and female PHIs within different age
categories (Fig. 5.1). According to the 2-test, there is a significant difference between the
percentage age distributions for male and female PHIs (p = 0.017). In particular, female PHIs
are likely to be older than male PHIs, and this is particularly notable in the categories of 18 to
29 years (lower percentage of females compared to the percentage of males) and 30 to 39 years
(higher percentage of females compared to males)— Fig. 5.1. This suggests that younger
females might be less interested in the PHI profession, or not confident in their performance in
the PHI role, or experience greater difficulties with obtaining the required qualifications.
Page | 125
Figure 5.1 Percentage distributions of male and female PHI participants by age
Note: Male PHIs: 259 participants; Female PHIs: 40 participants (Table 5.3.1).
Because females have a significantly lower participation rate in a PHI job (compared
to their male counterparts) it may be likely that they have lower degrees of interest and
motivation to succeed in this type of job due to a variety of reasons including cultural,
traditional and other grounds. Had this been true, it could have explained the low participation
rate for females. However, this notion is not supported by the analysis of the dependence of
motivation on gender (see below in this Chapter), which did not reveal any significant
differences in motivation by gender. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the low
participation rate for female PHIs is more associated with the current restrictions on females to
obtain the required qualifications of an undergraduate Diploma in Food Safety. This
proposition is further corroborated by the dominant representation of female PHIs in other
countries (Pham, et al., 2010; Johnson, et al., 2014).
Page | 126
Table 5.3.1 Respondents gender and age
Information N %
Gender
Male 259 86.0
Female 40 13.3
Prefer not to answer 2 0.7
Age group
18 – 29 75 24.9
30 – 39 192 63.8
40 – 49 29 9.6
50 – 59 4 1.3
Prefer not to answer 1 0.3
**N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
Respondents were also asked about their years of experience as a public health inspector
and their qualifications. Most inspectors had between six and ten years of experience equalling
42.9% (n=129) of participants. This was followed by 23.9% (n=72) who had between 11 and
20 years of experience. In terms of qualifications, 68 respondents (22.6%) held a technical
college (undergraduate) diploma and 127 (42.2%) had a secondary school diploma for health
inspection, which is, on average, notably lower than in other developed and developing
countries (Johnson, et al, 2014; Maldonado-Simán, et al, 2019). Table 5.3.2 below displays the
years of experience and qualifications. The consequences of the presented distributions of the
PHI cohort in terms of their work experience and qualifications are discussed in more detail in
the next section. Additionally, years of experience was used instead of age group in most of
the conducted analysis and comparisons, because those with more experience were generally
older so the age group effect is largely captured by years of experience.
Page | 127
Table 5.3.2 Years of experience and qualification, Public Health Inspectors
Information N %
Years of experience
0 – 2 years 47 15.6
3 – 5 years 32 10.6
6 – 10 years 129 42.9
11 – 20 years 72 23.9
20+ years 10 3.3
Prefer not to answer 11 3.7
Qualification
Middle school 0 0
Secondary school 7 2.3
Secondary diploma (Health inspection) 81 26.9
Technical college diploma 127 42.2
Bachelor 68 22.6
Post-graduate 4 1.3
Other 14 4.7
**N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
The comparison of the percentage distributions of PHIs over the three categories of
work experience [0–5 years (86 participants), 6–10 years (187 participants), and 11 years (17
participants)] for the three different categories of education / formal qualification were
conducted using the 2-test (Fig. 5.2). Significant differences between the considered
distributions (Fig. 5.2) were indicated, with p < 0.001. In particular, participants with the lowest
level of formal qualification (Secondary School) are characterized by the highest proportion of
PHIs with extended work experience ( 6 years – Fig. 5.2). This is probably because of the
Page | 128
lower past requirements for formal qualifications for PHIs. The significant number of
participants (88, which is around 30%) with low formal qualifications in the considered sample
further supports the expectation of a possible bias based on the Dunning-Kruger effect and
‘unconscious incompetence’ (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Flowers, 1999; Simons, 2013), when
the evaluation of the participants’ knowledge and skills in food safety inspections is
considered—see below the Discussion section.
Figure 5.2 Percentage distributions of PHI participants over the three indicated work experience categories, by education/qualification
Note: Middle / Secondary School: 88 participants; Secondary / College Diploma: 195 participants; and Bachelor / Postgraduate: 18 participants.
In terms of participant workplace, a large proportion of respondents at 40.5% (n=122)
chose not to answer this question (Table 5.3.3). This was probably caused by their fear of being
identified or because of other related issues. Of those that did answer the question, 26.6%
(n=80) worked within the general department of environmental health. Table 5.3.3 that follows
shows the breakdown according to the inspectors’ workplace.
Page | 129
Table 5.3.3 Public Health Inspectors’ workplace (municipality)
Workplace N %
Municipality
General Department of Environment Health (GDEH) 80 26.6
Other departments 99 32.9
Prefer not to say 122 40.5
**N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
5.3.3. Knowledge and Skills
Table 5.3.4 shows the inspectors’ confidence in nine areas of knowledge. For seven of
the nine knowledge areas, most of the inspectors reported that they were either confident or
very confident. The area in which the inspectors were the most confident is in communicating
inspection results where 80.8% (n=243) were confident or very confident in their knowledge.
The two areas in which less than half of the inspectors reported being confident were: Hazard
analysis and critical control point (HACCP) guideline and food sampling techniques. The table
below provides the results regarding each category of knowledge the participants were
questioned about and their responses.
Page | 130
Table 5.3.4 Inspectors’ confidence in nine areas of knowledge
Very confident Confident
Not Sure
Not confident
Not at all confident
Area N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Food safety laws and regulations+ 69 (22.9) 155 (51.5) 62 (20.6) 12 (4.0) 3 (1.0)
Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) guideline- 40 (13.3) 104 (34.6)
104 (34.6) 34 (11.3) 19 (6.3)
Inspection techniques+ 87 (28.9) 130 (43.2) 62 (20.6) 15 (5.0) 7 (2.3)
Food sampling techniques- 51 (16.9) 74 (24.6) 91 (30.2) 53 (17.6) 32 (10.6)
Communication about inspection results+ 126 (41.9) 117 (38.9)
40 (13.3) 10 (3.3) 8 (2.7)
Sanitation and hygiene+ 96 (31.9) 115 (38.2) 57 (18.9) 24 (8.0) 9 (3.0)
Food microbiology+ 54 (17.9) 99 (32.9) 98 (32.6) 34 (11.3) 16 (5.3)
Pest control+ 60 (19.9) 117 (38.9) 79 (26.2) 27 (9.0) 18 (6.0)
Scientific research+ 57 (18.9) 96 (31.9) 93 (30.9) 28 (9.3) 27 (9.0)
+Areas in which majority (50%) of the inspectors reported being confident or very confident. -Areas in which less than majority (50%) of the inspectors reported being confident or very confident; N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
The inspectors were also asked about their level of confidence regarding the specific
skills required to perform their job. The respondents felt most confident in their ability to
communicate, with 78% (n=235) feeling either confident or very confident. The participants
were the least confident regarding their English-speaking skills, with only 30.9% (n=93) being
confident or very confident (Table 5.3.5). The table below shows all the skill areas that the
inspectors were asked about and their corresponding responses.
Page | 131
Table 5.3.5 Inspectors’ confidence in twelve areas of skills
Very confident Confident Not Sure
Not confident
Not at all confident
Area N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Assessing compliance with food safety laws and regulations+ 77 (25.6) 138 (45.8) 56 (18.6) 22 (7.3) 3 (1.0)
Evaluation of HACCP system- 40 (13.3) 103 (34.2) 102 (33.9) 39 (13.0) 17 (5.6)
Inspection techniques+ 84 (27.9) 125 (41.5) 62 (20.6) 18 (6.0) 12 (4.0)
Using inspection devices+ 80 (26.6) 106 (35.2) 76 (25.2) 20 (6.6) 19 (6.3)
Food sampling techniques- 57 (18.9) 84 (27.9) 103 (34.2) 34 (11.3) 23 (7.6)
Assessing compliance with best practices in sanitation and hygiene+ 80 (26.6) 114 (37.9) 75 (24.9) 24 (8.0) 8 (2.7)
Assessing methods of microorganism control- 44 (14.6) 96 (31.9) 96 (31.9) 42 (14.0) 23 (7.6)
Assessing pest control+ 51 (16.9) 103 (34.2) 89 (29.6) 35 (11.6) 23 (7.6)
Conducting research and collecting evidence- 53 (17.6) 96 (31.9) 90 (29.9) 34 (11.3) 28 (9.3)
Communication skill+ 122 (40.5) 113 (37.5) 39 (13.0) 17 (5.6) 10 (3.3)
Reading English- 34 (11.3) 74 (24.6) 99 (32.9) 52 (17.3) 42 (14.0)
Speaking English- 29 (9.6) 64 (21.3) 86 (28.6) 57 (18.9) 65 (21.6) +Areas in which majority (50%) of the inspectors reported being confident or very confident. -Areas in which less than majority (50%) of the inspectors reported being confident or very confident; N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
The comparison of the percentage distributions of PHI responses to the questions about
the level of confidence in their reading and spoken English skills was conducted for male and
female PHIs using the 2-test (Figs. 5.3a, b). There was not a significant difference between
the distributions of responses by male and female PHIs with regard to their spoken English
Page | 132
skills (Fig. 5.3b, p = 0.72). At the same time, there was a significant difference in the confidence
of male and female participants regarding their reading English skills (Fig. 5.3a, p = 0.001).
Figure 5.3 Language confidence, by gender, reading English, and speaking English
Note: From 1 (‘Very confident’) to 5 (‘Not at all confident’) for male and female PHIs to the survey questions about the level of confidence in their skills in: (a) reading English; and (b) spoken English.
Interestingly, around 48% of females expressed lack of confidence in their reading
English skills (as opposed to around 30% of males), whereas around 40% of females expressed
confidence in their reading English skills (as opposed to around 34% of males) – Fig. 5.3a. As
these assessments are based on perception it is difficult to know whether there are real
differences in reading skills between males and females (Morse, 1994; Creswell, 1998;
DeFanzo, 2011).
Page | 133
Further, it is also important to investigate the effects of other demographic variables (in
addition to gender) on skills in reading and spoken English, which were found to be the most
problematic for both male and female PHIs (Table 5.3.5 and Fig. 5.3). To do this, multiple
regression models was developed in which levels of confidence of the participants in their
reading and speaking skills in English were considered as the dependent variables measured
on the Likert scale from 1 (‘Very confident’) to 5 (‘Not at all confident’). The considered
independent variables were gender, participant age, qualifications, and years of work
experience.
The results suggest that only PHIs with 6-10 years of experience had some evidence of
significantly worse skills (by 0.39 on average on the Likert scale from 1 to 5; p = 0.061) in
reading English compared to the participants from the two other work experience categories
(0-5 years, and 11 years). All other variables and categories did not have any significant
effects on skills in reading English.
This finding could be explained as follows. PHIs with less extensive work experience
(0-5 years) completed their qualifications recently, and they should be on average younger than
those PHIs with 6-10 years of experience. This sub-cohort of participants grew up in an
environment with a greater prevalence of English (with a more extensive access to information
in written English through media, Internet, etc.). In addition, younger generations are likely to
have a better education in English, and these factors are likely to cause greater confidence in
reading English skills among PHIs with less work experience. On the other hand, PHIs with
the longest work experience ( 11 years) are more likely to gain greater skills in reading English
by virtue of their food inspection work (including reading labels, instructions, regulations, etc.
in English) over very long periods of time. As a result, they are also more confident in their
reading English skills compared to PHIs from the 6-10 years of experience category. Thus,
there may be a gap in training/skills for those with 6-10 years of work experience and these
Page | 134
could be a group to focus on for training programs aiming to overcome any deficiencies in
reading English skills.
The results from the multiple linear regression for speaking English skills were
somewhat different, with a trend suggesting that participants with Bachelor/Postgraduate
qualifications had higher confidence in spoken English skills (by 0.57 on average on the Likert
scale from 1 to 5; p = 0.098) compared to the other two qualification categories
(Middle/Secondary School, and Secondary/College Diploma). All other variables and their
categories did not have significant effects on skills in speaking English. A plausible explanation
of this effect could be straightforward—PHIs with higher formal qualification had more
opportunities to encounter spoken English and were taught English better and more
extensively.
It is also important to note that the outcomes shown in Tables 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 should be
treated with a degree of caution. As further explained and discussed in the Discussion section,
these outcomes could be exaggerated and biased (towards overconfidence) by the self-
evaluating nature of the survey instrument and because of the significant proportion of PHIs
having low levels of education and qualification (Table 5.3.2 and Fig. 5.2). This is likely to
cause false confidence and lack of critical assessment of the personal abilities/skills by PHIs
(Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Flowers, 1999; Simons, 2013).
5.3.4. Training and Professional Development
Training and professional development represent one of the major aspects for growing
confident, professional and efficient PHIs, and particularly in the currently rapidly developing
World with continuously emerging new threats to food safety, and new foods (including those
from different cultures) appearing on the market (Wallace & Oria, 2010). The conducted survey
revealed that around 60.8% (n=183) of Riyadh PHIs had received training during their careers,
and about 50.8% (n=153) of participating PHIs stated that the content of the training was
Page | 135
helpful (Tables 5.3.6 and 5.3.7). At the same time, about 51.8% (n=156) had not received any
training and 27.2% (n=82) had received training only once in the last 12 months (Table 5.3.8).
Rather large proportions of the surveyed PHI cohort indicated that they had never received any
training or that training was not helpful (39.2% and 10% – Tables 5.3.6 and 5.3.7, respectively).
These numbers are significantly concerning, as they reflect current deficiencies in the
arrangements of PHI training in new emerging food safety treats and/or new inspection
techniques.
Table 5.3.6 Received training about food safety since started working as a PHI
Answer N %
Yes 183 60.8
No 118 39.2
total 301 100
**N: Cell count.
Table 5.3.7 Helpfulness of training content
Answer N %
Yes 153 50.8
No 30 10.0
total 183 60.8
**N: Cell count.
Table 5.3.8 Training attendance in the last 12 months
Attending N %
Never 156 51.8
Page | 136
One time 82 27.2
Two times 20 6.6
More than two times 18 6.0
Not applicable 25 8.3
Total 301 100.0
**N: Cell count.
A large majority of the study participants 88.4% (n=266) indicated that they would
attend professional development training even in the absence of any incentives (Table 5.3.9).
Although this finding should not be read as if there should be no incentives to attend training,
it is a significant indication that the majority of PHIs are so interested in professional training
that they are even prepared to disregard the absence of real incentives for attending such
training.
Table 5.3.9 Intention to attend a training course even if there is no reward
Answer N %
Yes 266 88.4
No 35 11.6
total 301 100 **N: Cell count.
The survey instrument also asked if the inspectors themselves managed their own
professional development and 86% (n=259) stated that this was the case (Table 5.3.10). They
were then asked what new skills/knowledge had they learned over the past month. About 14%
(n=42) of PHIs stated that they did not learn anything new that contributed to their professional
development.
In this regard, it is necessary to emphasise that self-management of own’s professional
development is not a controllable or reasonable approach to the issue of training. Self-
management is prone to lack of consistency, missing important points and other mishaps that
Page | 137
do not offer confidence in its efficiency. This is further confirmed by Table 5.3.11 showing
that 14% of all study participants did not learn anything useful in the last month during their
professional self-development. Although self-management of professional development could
provide better flexibility, it should not be relied upon without any control mechanism by the
industry and public food safety, and systematic (possibly, mandatory) training should be part
of PHI’s professional development and qualification (Newbold et al., 2008).
Table 5.3.10 Management of your own professional development (e.g., training, reading scientific articles)
Answer N %
Yes 259 86.0
No 42 14.0
total 301 100
**N: Cell count.
Table 5.3.11 Number of times PHIs learnt about something new that has contributed to their professional development
Times N %
Never 42 14.0
One time 92 30.6
Two times 28 9.3
More than two times 77 25.6
Not applicable 62 20.6
Total 301 100.0 **N: Cell count.
Regularity of training and professional development is a very important issue that needs
to be addressed, as typically training is required as soon as new developments and techniques
in food safety emerge (Wallace & Oria, 2010). The obtained outcomes (Table 5.3.8)
Page | 138
demonstrate a lack of regular training in food safety in Riyadh, with nearly 52% of the surveyed
PHIs not receiving professional training over the last 12 months. This concern is further
enhanced by the significant number of participants (42.8% - Table 5.3.12) indicating that
professional training was not available to them.
Table 5.3.12 Agreement level with statements related to training and education
Strongly agree N (%)
Agree N (%)
Not sure N (%)
Disagree N (%)
Strongly disagree N (%)
I don’t know N (%)
Training is usually available for me
47 (15.6%)
58 (19.3%)
57 (%18.9)
63 (20.9%)
66 (21.9) 10 (3.3%)
I will complete my studies even if my employer does not give me the opportunity
100 (33.2%)
71 (23.6%)
79 (%26.2)
30 (10%) 13 (%4.3) 8 (2.7%)
My qualification program prepared me well for my Job
104 (43.6%)
113 (37.5%)
49 (16.3%)
21 (7%) 12 (4%) 2 (0.7%)
**N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
To further understand and analyse the availability of professional training of PHIs,
ordinal logistic regression was used to examine the association between frequency of training
attendance in past 12 months (Table 5.3.13) and years of experience, qualification, gender,
municipality and motivation, skill and knowledge. The averaging of 12 skills items (question
2 in Appendix L) and 9 knowledge items (question 1 in Appendix L) to obtain the skills and
knowledge latent variables, respectively, was possible because of the good internal consistency
of the items constituting these latent variables. Reliability analyses were performed for the nine
knowledge items and twelve skill items. The obtained Cronbach’s alphas (0.875 for the skill
and 0.915 for the knowledge items) indicated that both groups of items form reliable and
consistent scales. Because of the consistency of the items with each other, it was possible to
consider the skill latent variable (M = 3.49, SD = 0.74) and the knowledge latent variable (M
= 3.65, SD = 0.80), which were computed for each participant by taking averages of their
Page | 139
respective twelve and nine items. The two latent variables were reverse coded so that higher
scores reflected higher levels of knowledge and skill, and then used as the latent (dependent or
independent) variables in the multiple regression analyses. Motivation was also reverse coded
with a higher score reflecting a higher level of motivation.
Table 5.3.13 Ordinal logistic regression predicting frequency of attending training the in past 12 months
OR 95% CI p-value N
Years of Experience (Ref: 0-5 years) 70
6-10 years 0.62 (0.34, 1.15) 0.129 129
11-20 years 0.58 (0.3, 1.13) 0.110 82
Qualification (Ref: Secondary diploma (Health Inspector) 186
Other 1.77 (0.62, 5.06) 0.285 15
Bachelor or above 1.62 (0.78, 3.34) 0.193 65
Gender (Ref: Male)
228
Female 1.44 (0.6, 3.48) 0.417 38
Municipality (Ref: GDEH)
74
Other 1.05 (0.56, 1.98) 0.875 87
Prefer not to say 1.32 (0.73, 2.41) 0.361 105
Motivation 1.21 (0.98, 1.49) 0.075 266
Skill 1.83 (1.05, 3.2) 0.034 266
Knowledge 0.90 (0.49, 1.66) 0.740 266
Note: General Department of Environment Health (GDEH); OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; N: Cell count.
Results from ordinal logistic regression indicated that years of experience,
qualification, gender, workplace (municipality), and knowledge were not associated with
frequency of attending training in past 12 months. There was a trend that higher motivation
was associated with a higher frequency of attending training, (OR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.98, 1.49],
p = .075). This effect size could be considered as small. Skill was the only significant
independent variables, and higher skill was associated with higher odds of attending training
more frequently, OR = 1.83, 95% CI = [1.05, 3.20], p = .034. This suggests that each unit
Page | 140
increase in skill was associated with an 83% increase in odds of attending training more
frequently. The effect size could be considered medium.
Another relevant question is about the likelihood of receiving professional training by
PHIs over the course of a food inspector career (question 3 in the survey instrument—Appendix
L). Table 5.3.14 shows the summary statistics of the likelihood of receiving training by PHIs
over the duration of their careers by gender, qualification, years of experience, and
municipality. It also includes the descriptive statistics of motivation, skill and knowledge by
receiving training (question 15. F in Appendix L).
The χ2 analysis shows that receiving training was not associated with municipality, χ2(2)
= 2.98, p = 0.369, but was significantly associated with qualification, χ2(2) = 11.37, p = 0.003,
years of experience, χ2(2) = 44.55, p < 0.001 and gender, χ2(1) = 21.09, p < 0.001 and higher
level of skill, t(299) = 4.14, p < .001, and knowledge, t(4.10), p < .001. There was no significant
difference in motivation between those who received and not received training (F(1, 299) =
0.26, p = 0.613).
Table 5.3.14 Prevalence of receiving training by gender, education level, years of experience, municipality, and the mean and standard deviation of motivation by receiving training
Received training Not received training
N % N % p-value
Gender
Male 170 65.60% 89 34.40% < 0.001
Female 11 27.50% 29 72.50%
Qualification .003
Secondary/ Technical college diploma 139 66.83% 69 33.17%
Bachelor or above 32 44.44% 40 55.56%
Other 12 57.14% 9 42.86%
Years of experience
Page | 141
0-5 years 28 35.40% 51 64.60% < 0.001
6-10 years 80 62.00% 49 38.00%
11+ years 71 86.60% 11 13.40%
Municipality
GDEH 52 65.00% 28 35.00% 0.226
Non-GDEH 131 59.30% 90 40.70%
Preferred not to answer 67 54.90% 55 45.10%
M SD M SD p-value
Motivation 2.17 1.25 2.10 1.19 0.613
Skill 3.64 0.73 3.26 0.84 < .001
Knowledge 3.79 0.66 3.44 0.81 < .001
**N: Cell count.
The multiple logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios for the
dependent variable of receiving professional training (not receiving training since the
beginning of PHI career was considered as the base category). The considered independent
variables were gender, education level, years of experience, municipality and motivation
(question 15. F of Appendix L).
Table 5.3.15 Receipt of training over the course of PHI career, logistic regression
OR 95% CI p-value
Years of Experience (Ref: 0-5 years)
6-10 years 4.78 (2.35, 9.74) 0.000
11-20 years 15.79 (6.48, 38.48) 0.000
Qualification (Ref: Secondary diploma (Health Inspector)
Other 1.19 (0.36, 3.97) 0.771
Bachelor or above 0.61 (0.27, 1.4) 0.243
Gender (Ref: Male)
Female 0.28 (0.1, 0.81) 0.019
Municipality (Ref: GDEH)
Other 0.96 (0.46, 2.01) 0.923
Page | 142
Prefer not to say 0.83 (0.41, 1.68) 0.608
Motivation 1.24 (0.95, 1.61) 0.112
Skill 2.05 (1.12, 3.75) 0.020
Knowledge 0.90 (0.47, 1.73) 0.762
Note: General Department of Environment Health (GDEH); OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; N: Cell count.
Results from logistic regression indicated that years of experience (OR = 4.78, 95% CI
= [2.35, 9.74], p < .001 for 6-10 years and OR = 15.79, 95% CI = [6.48, 38.48], p < .001 for
11-20 years; Reference group: 0-5 years of experience) and higher skill level (OR = 2.05, 95%
CI = [1.12, 3.75], p = .020) were associated with receiving training over the course of PHI
career, females were less likely to receive training, OR = 0.28, 95% CI = [0.10, 0.81], p = .019.
The effect size of years of experience and being female could be considered as large (OR =
4.78 and 0.28 respectively). The effect size of skill level could be considered as medium. In
contrast to bivariate analysis from the t-test above, knowledge was not significantly associated
with receiving training (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = [0.47, 1.73], p = .762), but this is likely due to
the strong correlation between skill and knowledge (r = 0.79). The gender variable was not
statistically significant for the probability for PHIs to receive professional training over the last
12 months (Table 5.3.14). At the same time, it was highly significant for the probability for
PHIs to receive professional training over the duration of their careers (with females having
significantly lower probability of receiving further professional training – Table 5.3.15). It can
be argued that this major difference might be caused by the significant changes in the Saudi
Arabian social structure and approaches to women. The recent attempts to incorporate women
activities more widely in the social and economic structures may result in greater accessibility
of further professional training for female PHIs, thus causing the observed lack of gender
significance within the last 12 months (Table 5.3.14). On the other hand, the more stringent
restrictions of the past on females still cause a backlog in the historical lack of training
Page | 143
availability. As a result, the outcomes of the professional training likelihood over the duration
of PHI careers illustrate the significant gender differences (Table 5.3.15).
Once the lack of availability and efficiency of professional training has been identified
(Tables 5.3.8, 5.3.10 to 5.3.15), another important question that should be raised is about the
specific barriers for PHIs to receiving professional training and development (Table 5.3.16).
The majority (52.2%) of the surveyed PHIs suggested that there were barriers preventing them
from attending professional training (Table 5.3.16). The largest specific barrier identified by
the participating PHIs was the lack of availability of training (34.6% - Table 5.3.17), which
further corroborates the current critical lack of availability of the relevant professional training
for PHIs in Riyadh.
Table 5.3.16 Presence of barriers that prevent professional training attendance
**N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
Table 5.3.17 Identification of potential barriers that prevent attendance of professional training (when answering yes or sometimes
**N: Cell count.
Answer N %
Yes 39 13.0
Sometimes 118 39.2
No 144 47.8
Potential barriers N %
Not available 104 34.6
Not relevant to what I need 55 18.3
No incentive 43 14.3
Page | 144
Also, regarding training, the participants were asked to select all topics that they would
like further training in. The most common topic among the participants was risk-based
(modern) food safety inspection techniques with 85% (n=256) stating they would like training
in this area. In addition, all other 10 proposed areas of training listed in the survey also attracted
significantly more than 50% response rates (Table 5.3.18). In general, Chi-square analysis
shows that there was no significant variation in these percentage across gender, years of
experience, qualification and workplace (municipality). This demonstrates widespread
perceptions among PHIs in Riyadh that comprehensive professional development and training
programs are needed across a wide spectrum of areas and issues embracing all major aspects
associated with food safety and health inspections at food providing shops and restaurants
(Table 5.3.18). The particular emphasis was on risk-based inspection techniques, English as
language of communication, and investigation skills in food inspections (Table 5.3.18).
Table 5.3.18 Topics that the participants identified a desire for further training
Topics Frequency N (%)
Risk-based (modern) food safety inspection techniques 256 (85%)
Use of inspection devices contained in the Health Inspectors bag 200 (66.4%)
Understanding and application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system
190 (63.1%)
Causes of foodborne outbreaks and illnesses and how to prevent future outbreaks
204 (67.8%)
Emerging food safety issues 204 (67.8%)
Foods from different cultures 175 (58.1%)
Emerging foodborne pathogens 199 (66.1%)
Understanding best practices regarding sanitation and hygiene 182 (60.5%)
Sampling tools and techniques 169 (56.1%)
Page | 145
English language (e.g., oral, written) 220 (73.1%)
Investigation skills in food safety inspection 218 (72.4%)
**N: Cell count.
The PHIs were also asked to select two of what they believed would be the most
effective strategies for receiving information regarding food safety. The majority of
participants at 72.4% (n=218) believed that using WhatsApp Messenger would be the most
effective way (Table 5.3.19), and only 15.6% (n=47) believed that using a website would be
the best approach. These results are revealing as they demonstrate a significant inclination
towards communicative hands-on tools, rather than less flexible and less personal information
provision through fixed websites. This is seen as the modern development in the
communication tools and techniques favouring person-to-person communications and
information exchange.
Table 5.3.19 The most effective strategy for disseminating food safety information to PHIs
Strategy N %
E-mail newsletter 88 29.2
Website 47 15.6
Social media (e.g., twitter, Facebook) 55 18.3
WhatsApp messenger 218 72.4
Workshop/ Seminar 194 64.5 **N: Cell count.
At the same time, the rather traditional way of disseminating new information by way
of workshops and seminars also attracted a very significant (the second largest) response rate
of around 64.5% (Table 5.3.19). In general, Chi-square analysis showed that there was no
Page | 146
significant variation in endorsing each of these dissemination channels across gender, years of
experience, qualification and municipality after adjusting for multiple comparisons.
Additionally, in another survey question about the usefulness of various resources of
training and professional development for the role as a health inspector (Table 5.3.20), the
overwhelming majority of the study participants stated that regular meetings with inspectors
from other agencies were the most useful resource (93%; n = 280), with the second most useful
resource being seminars/workshops (92.7%; n = 279) (Table 5.3.20).
Table 5.3.20 Usefulness of various resources for training and professional development
Resources Very useful N (%)
Useful N (%)
Neutral N (%)
Useless N (%)
Very useless N (%)
No opinion N (%)
Formal education 109 (36.2%)
122 (40.5%)
43 (14.3%)
16 (5.3%)
3 (1%) 8 (2.7%)
Seminars/workshops 178 (59.1%)
101 (33.6%)
12 (4%) 6 (2%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (1%)
E-mail newsletter 75 (24.9%)
97 (32.2%)
72 (23.9%)
36 (12%) 13 (4.3%)
8 (2.7%)
Web-based database for food safety information and resources
120 (39.9%)
109 (36.2%)
53 (17.6%)
7 (2.3%) 5 (1.7%) 7 (2.3%)
Regular meetings with inspectors from other inspection agencies (i.e., SFDA, MoC)
203 (67.4%)
77 (25.6%)
9 (3%) 7 (2.3%) 2 (0.7%) 3 (1%)
**N: Cell count.
5.3.5. Challenges and Obstacles
Challenges and obstacles represent specific barriers for the improvement of food safety
and achieving more effective inspections to enforce food safety in Riyadh and broader Saudi
Arabia. Understanding, characterising, and properly addressing/overcoming these barriers is
an essential goal in the development of food safety. This section presents the results regarding
Page | 147
the currently existing challenges and obstacles for PHIs and food safety in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia.
One of the significant identified obstacles appeared to be the communication with food
handlers who speak a different language. About 75.6% (n=228) of the study participants agreed
or strongly agreed that it is difficult to communicate food safety information in situations where
there is no common language between the food handler and the inspector (Table 5.3.21). Lack
of such communication is a major drawback for the improvement and enforcement of food
safety.
Table 5.3.21 Communication and clarity of food safety (Level of agreement on a six-point Likert scale)
Statements Strongly agree N (%)
Agree N (%)
Not sure N (%)
Disagree N (%)
Strongly disagree N (%)
No opinion N (%)
Whenever I meet food handlers who speak a different language from my own, I find it difficult to communicate food safety information to them
133 (44.1%)
95 (31.5%)
38 (12.6%)
31 (10.2%)
3 (0.9%)
1 (0.3%)
All Food safety laws and regulations are clear to me
83
(27.5%)
93 (30.8%)
62 (20.5%)
38 (12.6%)
20 (6.6%) 5 (1.6%)
**N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
Another major identified barrier is the lack of clarity of the food safety laws and
regulations, with almost a half of the study participants (41.3%) indicating that they were either
‘not sure’ about the clarity of the laws and regulations, or that these laws and regulations were
‘not clear’ to them (Table 5.3.21). Comparing this finding with the previously discussed level
of understanding of the laws and regulations by the study participants, it can be concluded that,
although more than 70% of PHIs are confident in their understanding of the food safety laws
and regulations (see Table 5.3.4), only 58.3% of PHIs considered these laws and regulations
sufficiently clear (see Table 5.3.21).
Page | 148
For further insight into these outcomes, the variable of whether or not the existing food
safety laws and regulations are sufficiently clear (question 12.B, Appendix L) was categorised
so that the responses ‘Strongly agree’ and ‘Agree’ (with the clarity of the laws and regulations)
were considered as the base category ‘Clear’, and all other responses were considered as
category 1 ‘Not clear’ (the categorical Clarity variable). This categorization was undertaken in
accordance with the notion that the laws and regulations are not sufficiently clear to those who
hesitated to respond ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ to this question. The 2-test was then used to
determine whether the categories ‘Clear’ and ‘Not clear’ were related to the responses to the
question about the perceived knowledge of food safety laws and regulations (question 1.A,
Appendix L). Fig. 5.4 shows the outcomes of this test analysis, demonstrating visual
correlations between the confidence in the knowledge of food safety laws and regulations and
the perceived clarity of these laws. Put differently, PHIs with greater perceived knowledge in
food safety laws and regulations are more likely to also perceive that the laws and regulations
are clear (see Fig. 5.4; p < 0.001 from the 2-test). This is expected, as perceived knowledge
of some aspects should be positively associated with the perceived clarity of those aspects.
To further confirm that the perceived clarity of the existing food safety laws and
regulations is related to the perceived knowledge of these laws and regulations, and to provide
better quantitative comparisons, multiple logistic regression, with the Clarity variable being
considered as the dependent variable, was then used to determine any significant effects from
the different response groups of PHIs. As a result, it was demonstrated that the perception of
clarity of the existing food safety laws and regulations is significantly affected only by different
answers to the question about the perceived knowledge of food safety laws and regulations
(question 1.A, Appendix L). The greater the confidence of PHIs in the perceived knowledge of
food safety laws and regulations, the greater is their perception in the clarity of these laws and
regulations (p 0.075), which is fully consistent with Fig. 5.4. At the same time, inclusion of
Page | 149
any other demographic variables (such as gender, education, age, and years of experience) into
the considered logistic regression did not result in any additional significant effects on the
perception of clarity of the existing food safety laws and regulations is (p > 0.14). It could thus
be concluded that the perception of clarity of the food safety laws and regulations is
significantly dependent only upon PHIs’ level of confidence in the food safety laws and
regulations.
Figure 5.4 Percentage distributions of PHI participants over the two categories of the Clarity variable ‘Clear’ and ‘Not clear’
Note: Derived from question 12.B, Appendix L) for the five different responses to the question about the perceived knowledge of food safety laws and regulations (question 1.A, Appendix L).
On the other hand, if the effects on the perception of clarity of the food safety laws and
regulations are considered only from the demographic variables (and the question about the
perceived knowledge of food safety laws and regulations (question 1.A, Appendix L) is not
included), then the outcomes of the multiple logistic regression model are shown in Table
5.3.22. This model and Table 5.3.22 demonstrate the differences in the estimated odds ratios
Page | 150
for the perception that the laws and regulations are not clear between the different PHI groups
(Table 5.3. 22), and these groups are likely to have different perceived levels of confidence in
the food safety laws and regulations (compare with the discussion in the previous paragraph).
In this case, the responses ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ in question 12.B, (Appendix L)
constituted the base category of the dependent variable evaluating whether the existing food
safety laws and regulations were perceived by PHIs to be clear.
Table 5.3.22 PHI perception that the existing food safety laws and regulations are not clear, multiple logistic regression for the odds ratios (OR)
Predictor Variable OR 95% CI p-value
Gender (base: Female) 0.42 (0.21, 0.86) 0.017
Experience (base:
11 years years)
0-5 years 1.97 (1.03, 3.79) 0.041
6-10 years 1.67 (0.92, 3.03) 0.089
Intercept 0.97 (0.44, 2.18) 0.95
Note: Responses ‘Undecided’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Strongly disagree’, or ‘No opinion’ in question 12.B, Appendix L). The table shows only independent demographic variable with significant (p 0.1) effects on perception of clarity of the existing laws and regulation. The other demographic variables (including education level and municipality) were not significant. OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; N: Cell count.
To provide a deeper insight into the relationships predicted by the developed model
(Table 5.3.22), Fig. 5.5 presents the graphical dependences of the predicted likelihood of the
perception that the existing food safety laws and regulations are clear (responses ‘Agree’ or
‘Strongly agree’ in question 12.B, Appendix L).
Page | 151
Figure 5.5 The predicted dependences of the likelihood that PHIs would perceive the existing food safety laws and regulations as not clear
Note: The responses ‘Undecided’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Strongly disagree’, or ‘No opinion’ in question 12.B, Appendix L) for the different indicated categories of their gender and work experience. The error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals for the respective points.
In particular, it can be seen that the perception of the existing laws and regulations as
‘not clear’ decreases with increasing work experience for both males and females. This is to be
expected, as longer work experience may enable PHIs to better familiarize themselves with the
laws and regulations, as well as with their meaning and application to the practice of food safety
inspections. Interestingly, female PHIs are significantly more likely to perceive the existing
laws and regulations as ‘not clear’ (Table 5.3.22 and Fig. 5.5). This could be related to the
overall lower level of perceived knowledge of female PHIs compared to their male counterparts
(see below) and lower probability to receive professional training over the duration of their
PHI careers (Table 5.3.15 and Fig. 5.5).
Challenges with evaluation and enforcement of safety regarding foods from different
cultures were acknowledged by the majority of the surveyed PHIs. For example, around 73.1%
Page | 152
(n=220) of PHIs regularly or at least occasionally encountered foods from different cultures,
and about 31.9% (n = 96) of PHIs stated that they did not know what to do when encountering
such foods (Tables 5.3.23 and 5.3.24). This is a significant gap in the practical knowledge and
skills of PHIs in Riyadh. Further Chi-square analyses showed that male PHIs reported
significantly higher frequency of encountering food from other cultures and more likely to
report knowing how to inspect food from other cultures. There was no significant difference
across years of experience, qualification and municipality.
Table 5.3.23 The frequency of encountering food from other cultures during inspection
Answer N %
Regularly 28 9.3
Occasionally 192 63.8
Rarely 61 20.3
Never 20 6.6
Total 301 100
N: Cell count.
Table 5.3.24 When food from other cultures is encounter, possession of knowledge to inspect
Answer N %
Yes 65 21.6
Sometimes 132 43.9
No 96 31.9
Not applicable 8 2.7
Total 301 100
N: Cell count.
The level of satisfaction of PHIs at their workplace is an important aspect for their
efficiency and motivation. Lack of PHI satisfaction could be regarded as a significant barrier
Page | 153
for the improvement of food safety. As can be seen from Table 5.3.25, for most of the
considered job-related issues the majority of the surveyed PHIs remain neutral. However,
regarding such issues as transportation services, motivation at workplace, and support and
security, the majority of the surveyed PHIs expressed dissatisfaction (Table 5.3.25). The only
area in which the majority of participants were satisfied or very satisfied was the diploma
curriculum for training health inspectors.
Table 5.3.25 Satisfaction level, job-related issues
Topic Very satisfied N (%)
Satisfied N (%)
Neither N (%)
Dissatisfied N (%)
Very dissatisfied N (%)
Food safety laws and regulations
18 (6%) 121 (40.2%)
84 (27.9%) 59 (19.6%) 19 (6.3%)
Equipment in Health Inspector’s bag
14 (4.7%) 71 (23.6%) 79 (26.2%) 75 (24.9%) 62 (20.6%)
Field work system (Raqeb)
28 (9.3%) 72 (23.9%) 84 (27.9%) 63 (20.9%) 54 (17.9%)
The criteria of annual performance report
26 (8.6%) 55 (18.3%) 92 (30.6%) 70 (23.3%) 58 (19.3%)
Transportation service provided by my department
32 (10.6%) 61 (20.3%) 37 (12.3%) 58 (19.3%) 113 (37.5%)
Motivation at my workplace
16 (5.3%) 38 (12.6%) 40 (13.3%) 87 (28.9%) 120 (39.9%)
Support and security provided by the management
22 (7.3%) 46 (15.3%) 44 (14.6%) 74 (24.6%) 115 (38.2%)
The diploma curriculum for training health inspectors
44 (14.6%) 127 (42.2%)
61 (20.3%) 40 (13.3%) 29 (9.6%)
N: Cell count.
Satisfaction of each of these domains was analysed by gender, qualification, years of
experience and municipality. Since each domain was coded from 1 ‘Very dissatisfied’ to 5
Page | 154
‘Very satisfied’, t-test and ANOVA were used. There was no significant variation by gender,
qualification and municipality in all domains after adjusting for multiple comparison. For some
of the domains, inspectors with less experience reported higher satisfaction.
Finally, the participants were asked about the areas of their job they wanted to improve
or found difficult (Table 5.3.26). Dealing with food handlers and business owners was the
priority area that was most difficult, according to the majority of the participants (67.4%;
n=203). Food safety laws and regulations came up as the area with the second largest response
rate of 54.2%, which is consistent with the previous findings about the lack of clarity of, and
satisfaction with, the food safety laws and regulations (Tables 5.3.22 and 5.3.25).
Table 5.3.26 Areas of PHI’s they find difficult or want to improve
Areas N %
Food safety law regulations 163 54.2
Food safety assessments 150 49.8
Dealing with food handler and business owner 203 67.4 N: Cell count. (N = 301 response rate 60%).
5.3.6. Education and Qualification
As can also be seen from Table 5.3.25, the majority of the surveyed PHIs were satisfied
with the diploma curriculum for training health inspectors (question 7.C, in Appendix L). This
is consistent with the previous findings presented in Tables 5.3.12 and 5.3.20. For example,
Table 5.3.12 shows that around 81.1% of the surveyed PHIs indicated that their qualification
program prepared them well for the job, and Table 5.3.20 further suggests that around 76.7%
of the surveyed PHIs agreed that their formal education was a useful resource for their training
and professional development. To gain further insights into PHI groups perceiving that their
qualification program prepared them well (or otherwise) for the job, this variable (question 7.C,
in Appendix L) was categorised so that the responses ‘Strongly agree’ and ‘Agree’ constituted
Page | 155
the base (reference) category, and other responses (including ‘Not sure’, ‘Disagree’ and
‘Strongly disagree’) constituted category 1. Multiple logistic regression model was developed
for this dependent variable and the following independent variables: age, gender, level of
education, years of experience, municipality, difficulties with different languages (question
12.A, Appendix L). However, the analysis identified no significant independent variables (p >
0.1).
Page | 156
5.4. Further Association Between the Variables
5.4.1. Correlation Between Skill and Knowledge in Nine Areas
This section considers correlations between the knowledge and skills variables in order
to characterize the relationships between them and establish how perceived knowledge of
specific items relevant to food safety and food safety inspections translates into the respective
perceived skills of PHIs. Table 5.4.1 shows the correlation between nine individual knowledge
items (question 1 of the survey instrument – Appendix L) and the respective nine individual
skills items (question 2 – Appendix L). All the correlations were statistically significant (with
p < 0.001). At the same time, the respective correlation coefficients appeared rather moderate
– between 0.48 and 0.63 (Table 5.4.1). This means that the percentage of the shared variance
for the respective pairs of knowledge items and skills varied between 23% and 40%,
respectively. This demonstrates that the knowledge items and the respective skills perceivably
possessed by the study participants are rather moderately related to each other. In other words,
only about R2 23% - 40% of variance of a perceived skill variable can be described by the
perception of the corresponding knowledge by the PHIs participating in the study. The
remaining 60% - 77% of the skills variance depends upon other parameters and factors. This
might be explained by the potential lack of solid links between the background knowledge
gained by the study participants during their formal education and training and the realities of
the food safety inspection in the field, requiring somewhat different practical skills.
Table 5.18.1 Table 5.18.2 Table 5.18.3
Table 5.4.1 Correlation between individual knowledge variables and the corresponding skill variables
Knowledge variables Correlation (r) with the corresponding skill variables
p-value
Food safety laws and regulations 0.48 < 0.001
Hazard analysis and critical control point guideline 0.63 < 0.001
Page | 157
Inspection techniques 0.56 <0. 001
Food sampling techniques 0.58 < 0.001
Communication about inspection results 0.60 < 0.001
Sanitation and hygiene 0.59 <0 .001
Food microbiology 0.50 < 0.001
Pest control 0.52 < 0.001
Scientific research 0.54 < 0.001
As previously discussed (see Section 5.3.4), reliability analyses were performed for the
nine knowledge items and twelve skill items. The obtained Cronbach’s alphas (0.875 for the
skill and 0.915 for the knowledge items) indicated high level of reliability and internal
consistency of the skills and knowledge scales. This enabled introduction of the two latent
variables characterizing the general skills and knowledge of PHIs by way of averaging over
the 9 knowledge items (the latent knowledge variable— question 1 in Appendix L) and 12
skills items (the latent skills variable—question 2 in Appendix L). An interesting question
arising from here is whether the general skills and knowledge of PHIs, characterized by the
respective latent variables correlate with each other in the same or similar way as the individual
knowledge and skills items. It has been found that the latent knowledge and skills variables
correlate better than any of the individual items. The corresponding correlation coefficient is
0.79 (p < 0.001), which means that up to ~ 62% of the variance of the averaged skills can be
explained by the averaged knowledge items. This significant improvement in the R2 coefficient
(compared to any pair of the corresponding individual knowledge and skill) means that the
overall relationship between perceived skills and perceived knowledge of PHIs is significantly
stronger than for any of the individual knowledge items and skills.
Page | 158
5.4.2. Association Between Gender, Education, Years of Experience and Municipality and Skills and Knowledge
Table 5.4.2 shows the descriptive statistics for the latent skill and knowledge variables
for the groups of participants with different gender, education level, years of experience, and
municipality. ANOVA was used to compare between different demographic groups of PHIs
regarding their perceptions of skills/knowledge in food safety inspections. In particular, the
results indicated that females reported significantly lower mean levels of knowledge (p =
0.002) and skill (p = 0.021) than males. Interestingly, the latent variables of knowledge and
skills were not significantly associated with other demographic variables, except for years of
experience, in which case there is a significant (under 10%) difference between the levels of
perceived knowledge in the three groups of PHIs with the typical work experience duration of
0-5 years, 6-10 years, and 11 years (with p = 0.094 – Table 5.4.2).
Page | 159
Table 5.4.2 Mean and standard deviation of knowledge and skill by gender, education level, years of experience and municipality
Knowledge Skill
Variables M SD p-valuea M SD p-valuea
Gender
Male 3.71 0.74 0.002 3.53 0.80 0.021
Female 3.32 0.64 3.22 0.70
Qualification
Secondary/Technical college diploma
3.51 0.79 0.437 3.69 0.72 0.418
Bachelor degree or above 3.39 0.81 3.55 0.79
Other 3.59 0.77 3.66 0.77
Years of experience
0-5 years 3.67 0.77 0.094 3.52 0.82 0.150
6-10 years 3.58 0.71 3.39 0.78
11+ years 3.80 0.70 3.61 0.80
Municipality
General department of environment health
3.71 0.74 0.685 3.46 0.81 0.894
Other 3.61 0.73 3.49 0.81
Preferred not to answer 3.65 0.75 3.51 0.78 aThe p-value was calculated based on comparison across different level of each of the variables using ANOVA. M: Mean; SD: standard deviation.
Table 5.4.3 shows the results of multiple regression analyses, with knowledge and skill
regressed on gender, education level, years of experience, and municipality. The set of
variables explained 4.6% and 3.2% of variance in knowledge and skill, respectively. Like the
results from ANOVA, only gender was significantly associated with knowledge, b = 0.41, SE
= 0.16, p = 0.011. There was a trend that gender was associated with skill (p = .073) (Table
Page | 160
5.4.3). As a result, females reported significantly lower levels of knowledge compared to
males. The effect was moderately small, partial η2 = 0.029. All other variables were statistically
non-significant. For more discussion of this see the Discussion Chapter below.
Table 5.4.3 Regression analyses predicting knowledge and skill
Knowledge Skill
Years of Experience (Ref: 0-5 years) b 95% CI p-value b 95% CI p-value
6-10 years -0.08 (-0.28, 0.12) 0.440 -0.11 (-0.34, 0.11) 0.332
11-20 years 0.09 (-0.13, 0.32) 0.411 0.06 (-0.19, 0.32) 0.615
Qualification (Ref: Secondary diploma (Health Inspector)
Other 0.12 (-0.23, 0.47) 0.489 0.20 (-0.19, 0.59) 0.324
Bachelor or above 0.06 (-0.19, 0.31) 0.637 0.02 (-0.26, 0.3) 0.889
Gender (Ref: Male)
Female -0.41 (-0.72, -0.09) 0.011 -0.32 (-0.67, 0.03) 0.073
Municipality (Ref: GDEH)
Other -0.05 (-0.26, 0.17) 0.661 -0.02 (-0.26, 0.22) 0.893
Prefer not to say -0.03 (-0.24, 0.18) 0.767 0.02 (-0.21, 0.26) 0.838
**b: Regression coefficient; CI: Confidence interval.
To evaluate the sensitivity of the previous regression analysis, knowledge and skill
latent variables were categorised into two categories with the scores < 4 and 4. This category
selection ensured reasonably similar numbers of participants in each category. In addition,
scores 4 and 5 on the original (reversed) Likert scale corresponded to ‘Very confident’ and
‘Confident’ with regard to the respective knowledge and skills items (questions 1 and 2 in
Appendix L). As a result, the selected categories reflected whether PHIs perceive confidence
in their general professional knowledge and skills Table 5.4.4 shows the results of logistic
regression with the same variables as in Table 5.4.3. Possible interactions between the
Page | 161
considered independent variables were investigated, but all appeared to be statistically
insignificant. As can be seen, the conducted logistic regression analysis (Table 5.4.4) leads to
similar conclusions as for the multiple linear regression model (Table 5.4.3) with the only
difference being that gender is a significant predictor of both knowledge and skill (Table 5.4.4).
That is, female inspectors were more likely to have lower levels of knowledge (OR = 0.18,
95% CI (0.05, 0.61), p = 0.006) and skill (OR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.02, 0.54), p = 0.006).
Table 5.4.4 Logistic regression analysis predicting knowledge and skill
Knowledge Skills
Years of Experience (Ref: 0-5 years)
OR 95% CI p-value
OR 95% CI p-value
6-10 years 0.65 (0.34, 1.24) 0.190 0.79 (0.38, 1.61) 0.507
11-20 years 1.07 (0.54, 2.12) 0.853 1.30 (0.62, 2.72) 0.480
Qualification (Ref: Secondary diploma (Health Inspector)
Other 1.40 (0.47, 4.21) 0.545 1.64 (0.52, 5.2) 0.397
Bachelor or above 1.58 (0.74, 3.39) 0.235 1.76 (0.82, 3.82) 0.149
Gender (Ref: Male)
Female 0.18 (0.05, 0.61) 0.006 0.11 (0.02, 0.54) 0.006
Municipality (Ref: GDEH)
Other 0.74 (0.37, 1.46) 0.380 0.86 (0.41, 1.79) 0.685
Prefer not to say 0.80 (0.41, 1.54) 0.504 1.06 (0.52, 2.14) 0.874
Note: General Department of Environment Health (GDEH); OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; N: Cell count.
5.4.3. Association Between Motivation and Gender, Education, Years of Experience and Municipality
Motivation of PHIs at their workplace is one of the major factors for the successful
improvement of food safety and enforcement of safe practices in the food retail industry in
Riyadh. Table 5.4.5 shows the comparative statistics for PHI motivation for groups of
Page | 162
participants differing by their gender, education level, years of experience, and municipality.
ANOVA was again used to examine the bivariate associations between mean motivation levels
in the considered groups. Results from these analyses indicated that motivation was not
associated with gender (p = 0.456) or education level (p = 0.134), but it was significantly (under
10%) associated with municipality (p = 0.093 – Table 5.4.5). Motivation was also significantly
associated with years of experience, p < 0.001. Participants with 6-10 years of experience (M
= 1.87, SD = 1.10) and 11+ years of experience (M = 1.93, SD = 1.09) reported significantly
lower level of motivation than those with 0-5 years of experience (M = 2.70, SE = 1.30) (with
p < 0.001 – Table 5.4.5).
Page | 163
Table 5.4.5 Mean and standard deviation of motivation by gender, education, years of experience and municipality
Motivation
Variables M SD p-valuea
Gender
Male 2.12 1.24 0.456
Female 2.28 1.13
Qualification
Secondary/Technical college diploma 2.14 1.27 0.998
Bachelor or above 2.14 1.13
Other 2.14 1.15
Years of experience
0-5 years 2.70 1.30 < 0.001
6-10 years 1.87 1.10
11+ years 1.93 1.09
Municipality
Non-GDEH 2.18 1.10 0.093
GDEH 1.90 1.08
Preferred not to answer 2.28 1.22 aThe p-value was calculated based on comparison across different level of each of the variables using ANOVA. M: Mean; SD: standard deviation.
Table 5.4.6 shows the results for the relationship between motivation (dependent
variable) and gender, education level, years of experience, and municipality. Pair-wise
interactions between the independent variables were checked and none were statistically
significant (all p > 0.1). The model explained 10.4% of variance in motivation and showed that
participants with 6-10 years (b = -0.81, 95%CI = [-1.14, -0.49], p < .001) and 11+ years of
Page | 164
experience (b = -0.72, 95% CI = [-1.09, -0.36], p < .001) reported lower levels of motivation
compared to those with 0-5 years of experience. This is an interesting outcome demonstrating
the notable increase of the level of dissatisfaction among PHIs with their growing work
experience in Riyadh. This represents a moderately large effect size (Cohen’s D = 0.66 and
0.59 for those with 6-10 years and 11-20 years of experience respectively).
Table 5.4.6 Regression analysis predicting motivation
Years of Experience (Ref: 0-5 years) b 95% CI p-value
6-10 years -0.81 (-1.14, -0.49) 0.000
11-20 years -0.72 (-1.09, -0.36) 0.000
Qualification (Ref: Secondary diploma (Health Inspector)
Other -0.13 (-0.7, 0.44) 0.650
Bachelor or above -0.21 (-0.62, 0.19) 0.301
Gender (Ref: Male)
Female 0.35 (-0.16, 0.85) 0.176
Municipality (Ref: GDEH)
Other 0.20 (-0.15, 0.55) 0.263
Prefer not to say 0.29 (-0.05, 0.63) 0.091
**b: Regression coefficient; CI: Confidence interval.
Since motivation was measured on the Likert (numerical) scale, the above analysis was
also repeated with the categorised motivation variable (motivated versus not motivated), in
order to assess the sensitivity of the results to the categorization used. Motivation was
categorised into two categories with the motivation scores < 4 (the base category) and 4
(category 1). This category selection also ensured a reasonably similar number of participants
in each category. In addition, scores 4 and 5 on the original Likert scale for Motivation
(question 15 in Appendix L) corresponded to ‘Very satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’ with motivation
at workplace. The multiple logistic regression was then used to determine the odds ratios for
Page | 165
PHIs to fall within one of the considered motivation categories. The outcomes of the logistic
regression model are shown in Table 5.4.7. These outcomes are consistent with those from the
multiple regression analysis (Table 5.4.6). In particular, compared to PHIs with 0-5 years of
experience, participants with 6-10 years and 11+ years of experience were significantly more
likely to report much lower levels of motivation, after adjusting for other variables in the model:
OR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.07, 0.84), p = 0.0025 and OR = 0.17, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.84], p = 0.030.
All other variables were statistically non-significant (Table 5.4.7).
Table 5.4.7 Logistic regression predicting motivation
Years of Experience (Ref: 0-5 years) OR 95% CI p-value
6-10 years 0.24 (0.07, 0.84) 0.025
11-20 years 0.17 (0.03, 0.84) 0.030
Qualification (Ref: Secondary diploma (Health Inspector)
Other 0.71 (0.08, 6.68) 0.764
Bachelor or above 0.42 (0.07, 2.7) 0.361
Gender (Ref: Male)
Female 0.71 (0.06, 8.93) 0.792
Municipality (Ref: GDEH)
Other 2.01 (0.35, 11.65) 0.438
Prefer not to say 3.00 (0.6, 14.87) 0.179
**OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval.
5.4.5. Association Between Gender and Municipality and Association Between Subjective Feeling About Preparedness for Inspector Job and Education Level
Table 5.4.8 shows the association between municipality and gender. χ2 analysis shows
that municipality was not significantly associated with gender, χ2(1) = 2.02, p = 0.155. Table
5.4.9 shows the descriptive statistics of the item ‘My qualification program prepared me well
for a real life health inspector job’ by education level .ANOVA shows that there was a
significant difference in the item ‘My qualification program prepared me well for a real life
Page | 166
health inspector job’ across education level, F(2, 296) = 0.3.30, p = 0.038. However, post-hoc
comparison indicated that none of the pairwise comparisons were statistically significant.
Table 5.4.8 Association between gender and municipality
Male Female
Municipality N % N % p-value
GDEH 73 91.25% 7 8.75% 0.341
Non-GDEH 85 85.86% 14 14.13%
Preferred not to answer
101 84.17% 19 15.83%
**N: Cell count. Table 5.4.9 Mean and standard deviation of the item ‘My qualification program prepared me well for a real-life health inspector job’ by education level
M SD p-value
Other 3.85 0.81 0.038
Secondary/ Technical college diploma 4.02 0.97
Bachelor/ postgraduate 3.65 1.35
**M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation.
Page | 167
5.5. DISCUSSION
5.5.1. Introduction
This section discusses in further detail the results of the PHIs online survey (Phase 2
Figure 3.4). Results are discussed first on the demographics of participants (Section 5.5.2). And
secondly on the results of the PHIs' general perception about their knowledge and skills in
section (5.5.3). Followed by discussion of the survey outcomes associated with training and
professional development (Section 5.5.4). Section (5.5.5) discusses the findings in relation to
PHIs job challenges and obstacles. In section (5.5.6) there is some discussion about the PHIs
education and qualification followed by a conclusion (5.5.7).
5.5.2. Demographics
The demographics of the respondents presented in Table 5.3.1 indicate that most of the
PHIs (86%) are males. The observed gender disparity is consistent with the employment
demographics in the country (Al-Bakr et al., 2017; Al-Asfour et al., 2017; Syed et al., 2018).
The high number of males is a result that, in Saudi Arabia, the Diploma of food safety degree
—the qualification requirement for PHI— is only available to males (Conditions for admission
to the diploma program, 2019). Therefore, female participants in this study (13.3%) are more
likely to have a different educational background (e.g., nursing or nutrition), and they were
responsible for inspecting only women’s businesses due to cultural reasons (Alsaleh, 2015). In
a similar study conducted in another region in Saudi Arabia, female PHIs constituted only 3.6%
of the overall study cohort (Alsaleh, 2015). This further confirms the significant gender
disparity with regard to the PHI profession and these two study cohorts.
Another important characteristic of the study participants was the large representation
by young people. Around 88.7% of the study participants were between 18 and 39 years of age
(see Table 5.3.1), which closely resembles the national age demographics where 69.2 % of the
entire population is aged 39 years and below (General Authority of Statistics, 2018). This
Page | 168
proportion of young PHIs is significantly higher than in Western developed countries. For
example, the proportion of young (below 35 years) PHIs in the study by Johnson, et al (2014)
conducted in the state of Indiana, USA, was only 21.3% and in another study in the state of
Ontario, Canada, (below 39 years) was under 50% (Pham, et al, 2010). The observed young
age of the participants in the current study provides some explanation as to why the majority
of the assessed PHIs (53%) had between three and ten years of experience.
The qualification requirements for the PHI profession in Saudi Arabia underwent
significant changes in recent decades. Prior to 2005, the educational prerequisite to become a
PHI was a Secondary diploma (Health Inspection), which was obtained after three years of
studies in health inspections, and it was equivalent to the level of a high school diploma. After
2005, the required level of qualification for a PHI became a 2-year undergraduate diploma
(Technical College Diploma) including a 3-month field-training course (Conditions for
admission to the diploma program, 2019). It can be argued that Saudi Arabia has raised the
required level of qualifications for the PHI profession to match other developing and developed
countries. These recent changes are probably the main reason that only 28.6% of the study
participants have a Technical College Diploma (undergraduate diploma) or higher (Table
5.3.2). The study participants were enrolled from the existing pool of PHIs in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, which includes a number of PHIs who qualified for this job prior to raising the
qualification prerequisites in 2005. This has resulted in a significantly higher proportion of
lower qualified PHIs compared to, for example, more than 75% of all PHIs in the state of
Indiana, USA, having a Bachelor degree or higher (Johnson, et al, 2014), and around 86% of
PHIs at import entry ports in Mexico having a college degree (Maldonado-Simán, et al., 2019).
Also, in some developed countries such as Canada and Australia, the minimum qualification
requirement to be a PHI is a Bachelor’s degree (enHealth, 2009; Butler-Jones, 2008; Raphael
& Briant, 2006; Seed et al., 2013).
Page | 169
Out of all study participants who chose to disclose their place of work, approximately
equal numbers (26.6% and 32.9%) were working in the General Department of Environment
Health (GDEH) and other departments (municipalities) (see Table 5.3.3). Interestingly, around
40% of the participants did not disclose their place of work, which could be because of possible
fear of being identified. Results must be therefore interpreted cautiously due to the risk of the
presence of reporting bias.
5.5.3. Knowledge and Skills
General Comments About Knowledge and Skills
It is important to note here that, because of the relatively low levels of qualification of
PHIs in Riyadh (see the previous section), the responses of the surveyed PHIs could be biased.
This is because of the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Simons,
2013) and ‘unconscious incompetence’ (Flower, 1999), which tend to cause a cognitive and
perceptual bias among less-skilled performers and people with lower levels of education and
qualification towards overconfidence and overestimation of their abilities. Such people often
simply do not understand their lack of abilities, knowledge and skills, and do not recognise this
deficit (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Flowers, 1999; Simons, 2013). It is also important to note
that the Dunning-Kruger effect and unconscious incompetence are gender-neutral; therefore,
they equally affect male and female. In addition, the Dunning-Kruger effect and unconscious
incompetence could have an impact on the outcomes of any survey with the self-evaluating
nature, if the perceptions of skills and knowledge are evaluated. While there are other methods
to evaluate the participants knowledge and skills such as direct observation, it was not feasible
due to the limited resources available to the researcher (Mills et al., 2009).
It has been found that, on the one hand, the surveyed PHIs had typically high levels of
confidence in their risk-based knowledge and skills, whereas, on the other hand, the majority
of them would like additional training in the same areas associated with their food inspection
Page | 170
activities (see section 5.5.4). One of the possible reasons for this inconsistency is that a general
consensus was identified among the participants that there was a significant lack of training
opportunities and if found, they did not target their real needs in food safety inspection (see
section 5.5.4), and this recognised lack resulted in their high expression of the need for
additional training in all listed areas.
Another potential reason for this inconsistency is that most of the surveyed PHIs might
be at the levels of Remembering and Understanding in Bloom’s taxonomy knowledge pyramid
Figure 5.6 (Bloom, 1956). The PHI participants might not be fully confident with applying
their knowledge in the practice of food safety inspections. Therefore, they might be ‘confident’
in their knowledge and skills in food safety inspections. However, they simultaneously feel
deficiencies in their abilities to apply their knowledge to the practical situations emerging
during food inspection, which is a possible reason for their perception of the need for further
training, and expressing their willingness to attend such training. This interpretation, in addition
to the Dunning-Kruger effect and unconscious incompetence, could be the cause for
inconsistency between the finding of high levels of confidence of the surveyed PHIs in their
knowledge and skills within specific areas in risk-based food safety inspection, and their
expression of the need for further training in these knowledge and skills areas.
Page | 171
Figure 5.6 The Bloom’s taxonomy knowledge pyramid representing the increasing depth of knowledge and skills resulting from a learning process (Armstrong, 2016)
Demographics and Knowledge and Skills
Group comparisons were conducted using the one-way ANOVA approach in order to
evaluate any differences between the characteristic demographic groups within the cohort of
PHIs from Riyadh regarding to their average knowledge and skills (Table 5.4.2). The only
statistically significant difference (with p < 0.05) was identified between male and female PHIs,
with males displaying significantly higher levels of confidence in their knowledge and skills
(Table 5.4.2). This difference might be explained by the limitations on females who are not
allowed to obtain Technical College (PHI qualification diploma) in food safety in Saudi Arabia.
As a result, female PHIs have different educational backgrounds in food safety, and this
naturally resulted in lower levels of knowledge and skills of female PHIs compared to their
male counterparts (Conditions for admission to the diploma program, 2019). This finding was
further confirmed by the multiple regression analyses using linear regressions (Table 5.4.3)
and logistic regressions with the categorized variables of average knowledge and skills (Table
5.4.4). Both types of regression models confirmed that the only significant (under 5%) variable
Page | 172
was gender of participants, and that males PHIs were significantly more confident in their
knowledge and skills in food safety inspections, compared to their female counterparts.
The lack of significant effects of years of experience and the different levels of
qualification on perceived knowledge and skills of PHIs (Tables 5.4.3 and 5.4.4) is likely to be
caused by the overall low level of formal education among the Saudi PHIs, compared to other
developed and developing countries (Hobbs et al., 2002; Crim et al., 2014; Butler-Jones, 2008;
Raphael & Briant, 2006; Seed et al., 2013; Maldonado-Simán, et al. , 2019). In addition, the
lack of significant effects of municipality (workplace) on knowledge and skills variables
(Tables 5.4.3 and 5.4.4) is likely to be an illustration of the relative uniformity of the PHI
workforce over different municipal regions and organisations.
Food Safety Laws and Regulations
In any country, food safety inspection must be conducted on the foundation of, and in
accordance with, the legal and legislative framework of the existing laws and regulations (FAO,
2015). As argued by Cerit (2015), there is a need for the PHIs to hold a sound knowledge of
the existing food laws and regulation since they form the basis upon which the inspection
process is undertaken. FAO (2015) further noted that the absence of a good understanding of
law and regulation among PHIs negatively affects their ability to carry out risk-based food
inspection.
According to the results presented in Table 5.3.4, most of the PHIs in Riyadh are
‘confident’ (51 %) while 22.9 % are ‘very confident’ about their knowledge of food safety laws
and regulation. Similarly, around 71.4% of the study participants are ‘very confident’ or
‘confident’ in their investigative skills in assessing compliance with food safety laws and
regulations, as opposed to 8.3% who are ‘not confident’ or ‘not confident at all’. This shows
the high level of knowledge and skills among Riyadh PHIs in performing their tasks specific
Page | 173
to food safety laws and regulations. At the same time, the significant numbers of participants
who are ‘not sure’ about their knowledge in food safety laws and regulations and ‘not sure’
about assessment of compliance with these laws and regulations (20.6% and 18.6%,
respectively—see Tables 5.3.4 and 5.3.5) also demonstrate the available opportunities for
further improvement of knowledge and skills of PHIs in this important area. Cerit (2015)
argued that, the awareness of safety laws among the PHIs determines effective the
identification of the food safety issues and the prevention of foodborne illnesses (FBIs).
Because more than 70% of PHIs are confident in their knowledge of the food safety
laws and regulations (Table 5.3.4), and only 58.3% of PHIs consider these laws and regulations
sufficiently clear (Table 5.3.21), there is some contradiction between the claimed good level of
knowledge of the laws and regulations by the study participants and the perceived lesser clarity
of these laws and regulations. This conflict could be explained either by the exaggerated
perceptions of the participants regarding their level of understanding of the laws and
regulations (see above for the discussion of the Dunning-Kruger effect and its application to
the obtained outcomes), or by the actual flaws in the existing laws and regulations. It is argued
that the second explanation is more likely and particularly for this area of knowledge. This is
due to the participants’ responses to another related survey item ‘What areas of your job do
you find difficult or want to improve?’ (see Table 5.3.26) and where more than half (54.2%) of
the PHIs participants responded that they wanted to improve food safety laws and regulations.
This further confirms that the food safety inspection laws and regulations in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia need to be revised and clarified.
According to a similar study conducted in Canada, the lack of clarity in law and
regulation has resulted in a lack of consistency, with different health departments and PHIs
having different interpretations of the existing food safety laws and regulations (Pham, 2010).
As was discussed in the literature review (see Chapter 2), the need for food safety laws and
Page | 174
regulations and their detailed knowledge are paramount in empowering PHIs and their
inspection activities (FAO, 2015). It is also recognised that revision of the current legislations
and regulations in Riyadh is also important to ensure that they are consistent with the risk-
based approach to food safety inspection (FAO, 2015).
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
According to the FAO framework, the understanding of HACCP principles is
fundamental to the implementation of risk-based food inspection (FAO 2015). Hutter and
Amodu (2009) argued that there is need for the PHIs to have adequate knowledge and skills in
HACCP for them to effectively identify and evaluate food safety hazards during restaurant
inspection. Also, HACCP knowledge and skills areas were recognised in several university
course accreditation guidelines for food safety inspectors in the developed countries that have
risk-based inspection system in place (CIPHI, 2018; enHealth, 2009).
Given that 52.2% of the PHIs participants were ‘not sure’ or ‘not confident’ or ‘not
confident at all’ in their HACCP knowledge (see Table 5.3.4) demonstrates that the majority
of PHIs in Riyadh have insufficient knowledge of the HACCP guidelines. Essentially the same
response rate was also observed with their skills in HACCP evaluation, with around 52.5% of
all participants indicating that they are either ‘not sure’ or ‘not confident’ or ‘not confident at
all’ (see Table 5.3.5). In terms of the difference between PHI groups, linear regression analysis
for the dependent variable of PHI confidence in their knowledge of the HACCP guidelines
(question 1.B, Appendix L) showed that this variable significantly depends on gender (p <
0.001). Female PHIs have significantly lower confidence in their knowledge of HACCP (by
0.78, p < 0.001) on average on the Likert scale from 1 ‘Very confident’ to 5 ‘Not confident at
all’. There is no significant dependence of this dependent variable on any other demographic
variables including age (p > 0.28), qualification (p > 0.4), years of experience (p > 0.21), and
municipality (p > 0.32).
Page | 175
The lack of confidence among PHIs in their knowledge and skills in HACCP principles
is a potential impediment to the implementation of a risk-based inspection. This is because a
good understanding of its principles enables the PHIs to carry out a thorough and effective risk-
based inspection to better prevent FBIs (FSIS, 2015). Also, developed countries such as the
US, Australia that implement risk-based inspections require the food safety inspectors to have
a good understanding of HACCP (Crim et al., 2014; Loader & Hobbs, 1998; enHealth, 2009).
Further, 63.1% of all participants identified the need for further training in HACCP (Table
5.3.18), and there was no significant variation in this percentage across demographic variables.
This demonstrates the need for effective training of all PHI to raise their level of knowledge
and skills in this area.
Inspection Techniques, Using Devices and Sampling
Inspection techniques and analytical toolkits for identification and evaluation of
specific risks to food safety are another essential element of the risk-based inspection (FAO,
2008). These issues were addressed by five different questions in the survey, related to current
knowledge in ‘Inspection techniques: observation, inspection, measuring, testing,
questioning’, current skills in ‘Inspection techniques: observing, inspecting, measuring and
testing’ and ‘Using of inspection devices (e.g., calibrated thermometer in testing food)’, and
need for further training in ‘Use of inspection devices contained in the Health Inspectors bag’
and ‘Sampling tools and techniques’. Around 72.1% of all participants responded that they
have confidence in their knowledge of ‘Inspection techniques: observation, inspection,
measuring, testing, questioning’ (Table 5.3.4). A similar response rate of confidence (69.4%)
was associated with the current professional skills in implementation of such techniques by
PHIs (Table 5.3.5). Around 61.8% of PHIs participants were also confident about using the
available inspection devices (Table 5.3.5). At the same time, the majority of PHI participants
without significant difference among the groups were still feeling the need for further training
Page | 176
in using inspection devices (66.4%), and in sampling tools and techniques (56.1%) (Table
5.3.18).
Food sampling techniques are integral to the issue of inspection techniques and devices
because sampling is undertaken by using specific techniques and devices designed and used
for food sampling and the determination of its safety. At the same time, the issue of food
sampling also has its own important aspects, such as, handling of food samples, their
transportation to a testing lab. Therefore, food sampling has been considered separately from
inspection techniques and devices. The outcome of the study indicated that only 41.5 % of the
PHIs in Riyadh are confident in their knowledge of food sampling techniques (see Table 5.3.4).
Similarly, when referring to the skills in food sampling techniques, only 46.8 % of PHIs are
confident (see Table 5.3.5). This showed a lack of confidence among the other part of the PHIs
that may negatively affect the current inspection practices as well as the implementation of a
risk-based approach. As indicated in the FAO framework, (2008) and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, (2015), food sampling techniques constitutes one of the essential steps in
the identification of hazards and FBI control, which is important in the implementation of a
risk-based approach. The PHIs cannot carry out effective product testing without having the
required skills and knowledge in food sampling techniques. Thus, there is a need to enhance
the PHIs’ knowledge and skills through training in food sampling techniques as a means of
enhancing the integrity of food safety inspections. This is further confirmed by the previously
indicated perceived need for further training in sampling tools and techniques, which was
highlighted by 56.1% of all study participants (see Table 5.3.18).
Sanitation and Hygiene, Food Microbiology and Pest Control
Sanitation and hygiene are another essential part of the risk-based food safety
inspection and in which PHIs must be knowledgeable and able to convey this knowledge to
restaurant management and employees (FAO, 2008). The findings regarding the knowledge on
Page | 177
sanitation and hygiene showed that most of the PHIs in Riyadh (70.1 %) are confident (see
Table 5.3.4). This finding is supported by the findings related to their skills in the assessment
of adherence to sanitation and hygiene, which indicated that most of the PHIs (64.5 %) are
confident (see Table 5.3.5). Further, more than a third of the PHI participants were ‘not sure’
or ‘not confident’ or ‘not at all confident’ in their knowledge and ability to assess compliance
with sanitation and hygiene practices. This identified a significant gap in an important area of
knowledge and skills among the PHIs in Riyadh. The failure to observe hygiene practices (e.g.,
handwashing among food handlers) is one of the major causes of FBIs and is associated with
FBI outbreaks (Afifi et al., 2012; Michaels et al., 2004; Pham, 2010). It is therefore important
for PHIs to have a good understanding of sanitation and hygiene to assure compliance of
restaurants and food handlers with the best practices to prevent FBIs and to better protect the
community’s health. In comparison to the PHIs in Riyadh, less than 3% of PHIs in the province
of Ontario, Canada, were not sure or not confident with their knowledge of sanitation and
hygiene (Pham, 2010).
Additionally, in another survey question related to the sanitation and hygiene which
requested that the PHI participants list their priority areas for further professional training, the
need for training in ‘Understanding best practices regarding sanitation and hygiene’ was
indicated by more than half of the surveyed Riyadh PHIs (see Table 5.3.18).
Another important area of risk-based inspection knowledge and skills is food
microbiology. PHIs must be knowledgeable about food microbiology in order to effectively
conduct risk-based inspections and focus the inspection on issues that may cause FBIs (Cheng
& Sun, 2015; FAO, 2008). Almost half of all study participants (49.2%) were ‘not sure’ or ‘not
confident’ or ‘not at all confident’ about their knowledge in food microbiology (see Table
5.3.4). Further, more than half of the participants (53.5%) were ‘not sure’ or ‘not confident’ or
‘not at all confident’ about their skills in assessing methods of microorganisms (see Table
Page | 178
5.3.5) demonstrating a general lack of confidence in this area. This also provides a potential
implication for the above discussed issue and that is, the ability of the PHIs to conduct adequate
sanitation and hygiene assessments. Marriott and Gravani (2006) argued that understanding the
role of microorganisms in FBIs is important in understanding the principles of food sanitation
and hygiene. Therefore, PHIs’ lack of knowledge and skills in microbiology will negatively
affect conducting effective sanitation and hygiene assessment. This calls for urgent rectifying
measures in the form of specially targeting training programs and food microbiology courses
for PHIs.
Pest control is another area of knowledge and skills that the PHIs should possess when
examining pest control application in restaurants, as exposure to pests could make food unsafe
and contaminated with toxins and dangerous pathogens (FAO, 2008). The majority of the study
participants were confident about their knowledge and skills in this area, with 58.8% and 51.1%
of the respective response rates (see tables 5.3.4 and 5.3.5). Nonetheless, almost 50% of all
participants were ‘not sure’ or ‘not confident’ or ‘not at all confident’ about their knowledge
and skills in this area. This identified lack of confidence constitutes a matter for concern that
should be addressed through training. In a different study, the proportion of PHIs who were not
confident with their knowledge about pest control was significantly lower (only 1.3%)
compared with PHIs in the current study (Pham, 2010).
Communication and English Language Skills
The FAO framework recommended that PHIs should possess good communication
skills to effectively communicate with the stakeholder and adequately convey important
technical and regulatory information (FAO, 2008). This is an essential part of any successful
food inspection, including identification of any food safety issues and correctional actions to
prevent future food FBIs by way of a risk-mitigating plan and regulatory measures (Hutter &
Amodu, 2009). As argued by Wallace and Oria (2010), PHIs should be trained in improving
Page | 179
their communication ability so the transfer of their knowledge and communication with
restaurant workers will be effective.
As outlined in the results, the majority of PHIs in Riyadh are confident about their
knowledge in ‘Communication about inspection results’ (80.8%) and in their ‘Communication
skills’ (78.0%) (Tables 5.3.4 and 5.3.5). These outcomes are consistent with each other and
demonstrate the strongly prevalent perception among PHIs about their high level of
communication knowledge and skills in general. However, these results should be taken with
a degree of caution, because in another area of knowledge and skills ‘English language’
(needed for better communication skills) and the respective items in the survey demonstrate
rather low rates of confidence in this area, with only 35.9% of participants being confident in
their reading English skills, and 30.9% being confident in their speaking English skills (see
Table 5.3.5). Thus, although the perceptions about current PHI knowledge and skills in general
communication are high, there is a recognised need for improvement in English language
communication skills. Once again, this does not mean that other communication skills are of
lesser importance—they should be equally addressed. The PHIs in Riyadh need to have a good
command of the English language (as a commonly shared language) since in most cases,
workers from non-Arabic backgrounds who rarely understand the native language in Saudi
Arabia are employed in restaurants. The inability of an inspector to adequately communicate
with food handlers due to language constraints will result in difficulties in conducting effective
food safety inspection (Pham, 2010).
Scientific Research
Although, scientific research was not identified clearly in the FAO framework as a key
area of knowledge and skills required by PHIs to conduct a risk-based inspection, it has been
suggested that increasing complexity in the food supply chain requires a more specialised PHI
workforce, with different inspections specialising in their narrower areas of expertise (e.g., use
Page | 180
research methods to inform evidence-based decision-making in food safety) (CIPHI, 2018;
Wallace & Oria, 2010). Therefore, the PHIs’ knowledge and skills in research and collecting
evidence were considered in the current survey. Further, the aim of the related survey question
was to get a sense of the PHIs’ general understanding in scientific research rather than
investigating their detailed knowledge and skills in this area.
Almost half of the PHIs participants were ‘very confident’’ or ‘confident’ about their
knowledge (50.8%) and skills (49.5%) in scientific research and collecting evidence. This is a
unexpected result given that most of the participants (71.4%) hold relatively low qualification
(secondary diploma or below), and that scientific research is a complex topic that requires
appropriate skills in qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection, analysis, research
design. It is also possible that this high level of confidence among the participants was due to
misinterpretations of this particular survey item (i.e., scientific research and collecting
evidence) and this could be considered as a general term that the PHIs participants were not
certain about. Therefore, this area of knowledge and skills may need further detailed
investigation.
5.5.4. Training and Professional Development
Training and professional development has been partly considered in the above
sections, as this helped to better understand and analyse the responses of the study participants
with regard to their knowledge and skills. At the same time, a more systematic and detailed
discussion of the survey outcomes associated with training and professional development of
PHIs in Riyadh is useful for further understanding of the existing issues associated with the
training and development of the PHI workforce in Riyadh. This is also important to identify
any potential barriers and facilitators to knowledge use within Knowledge to Action framework
(KTA) Figure 2.4 (Graham et al., 2006).
Page | 181
Around 39.2% of all study participants indicated in their surveys that they never
received any training about food safety since they started to work as a PHI (see Table 5.3.6).
Thus, they are systematically overlooking or missing new emerging food safety issues,
techniques and procedures, emerging food pathogens. More than half of the study participants
(51.1%) indicated that they have not attended training for professional development in the last
12 months (see Table 5.3.8). This means that more than third of all participating PHIs do not
receive any updates to their PHI qualification, and more than 50% of PHIs in Riyadh do not
receive regular updates to their PHI qualification. Further, only 34.9% of all participants
responded that ‘Training is usually available for me’ (Table 5.3.12). This demonstrates a major
shortcoming in the overall arrangement with the availability of further training of Riyadh PHIs
which is contrary to the best general practices in food safety adopted in other countries. For
example, whereas the food safety guidelines and procedures at the federal and local levels in
the US are subject to constant change, all inspection staff, regardless of their experience and
years of practice, are required to undergo re-training in order to standardise their approach to
food safety assessment procedures (Newbold et al., 2008).
Around 86% of the study participants indicated that they manage their own professional
development. However, self-training may not guarantee sufficient levels of training in, and
knowledge of, up-to-date information and new developments in food safety. This is further
corroborated by the high rate of responses by the study participants that they would like to have
further training in different food safety issues such as, ‘Emerging food issues’ (67.8%), ‘Foods
from different cultures’ (58.1%), and ‘Emerging foodborne pathogens’ (66.1%) (see Table
5.3.18). Further, more than 50% of participants responded that they would like to have further
training in each of the proposed areas of training, with the highest rate of positive responses
(85%) emerging for training in ‘Risk-based (modern) food safety inspection techniques’ (see
Table 5.3.18). In general, there were no significant variation in these results across gender,
Page | 182
years of experience, qualification and workplace. It could thus be said that there is a general
consensus among the Riyadh PHIs that the currently existing training programs are insufficient
and should be expanded on a more regular basis, taking into account all of the proposed major
areas of further training highlighted in Table 5.3.18.
An interesting finding regarding gender differences when it relates to training
availability. As was briefly discussed in the Results sections above, there was no difference in
the probabilities for male and female PHIs to receive professional training over the last 12
months (Table 5.3.14). At the same time, the likelihood for female PHIs to receive professional
training over the duration of their careers (i.e., since the time they started their PHI jobs) was
significantly lower than for male PHIs (Table 5.3.15). It can be argued that this is an important
finding demonstrating the recent changes in the attitude towards professional training of female
PHIs, with female PHIs currently having the same opportunities for their professional training
as their male counterparts. It could also be argued that this is reflective of the recent trends in
Saudi Arabia that are aimed at the wider incorporation of women into the social and economic
structures, and this has resulted in greater accessibility of further professional training to female
PHIs, thus causing a significant decline in gender significance within the last 12 months (Table
5.3.14). These trends are consistent with those in other developed and developing countries
where women constitute a significant part of the PHI workforce. However, the fact that female
PHIs have had significantly lower opportunities for professional training over the duration of
their careers (Table 5.3.15 and Fig. 5.5) could still cause a significant backlog of the past lack
of training availability.
Furthermore, about 88% of all participants responded that they would attend further
training even if there is no reward (Table 5.3.9). The municipal authorities should, therefore,
take advantage of the willingness of the PHIs to introduce training programs and address any
identified gaps in their knowledge and skills. As identified in Table 5.3.19, the two top tools
Page | 183
for disseminating food safety information to PHIs were WhatsApp messenger (72.4% of all
participants) and Workshop/Seminar (64.5% of all participants). While the nature of WhatsApp
messenger is suitable for fast dissemination of some group short text message and brief
information, the second most preferred option—Workshop/Seminar—could be a better
approach for knowledge dissemination especially when the aim is to improve practices (Tanner
& Hale, 2002). Table 5.3.20 confirms this by further showing that ‘Seminars/Workshops’ and
‘Regular meetings with inspectors from other inspection agencies (i.e., SFDA, MoC)’ were
perceived as the most useful resources for further training and professional development. It is
also noted that ‘Web-based database for food safety information and resources’ could also be
a useful resource for food safety training (see Table 5.3.20).
5.5.5. Challenges and Obstacles
There are various job-related challenges and issues that should be considered for
successful improvement of food safety inspection practices in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. These
issues such as motivation at the workplace and the criteria of the PHIs’ annual performance
report were described by the participants in semi-structured interviews (Phase 1) as issues that
negatively affected their job performance and the efficiency of food safety inspection visits.
Therefore, such issues were investigated in the current survey (Phase 2) and PHIs participants
were asked to rate their satisfaction level about them.
As can be seen from Table 5.3.25 the results show that there is a high level of
dissatisfaction among PHIs regarding some of the listed job-related issues. One of the major
issues is the motivation at the workplace, where approximately (69%) of the participants were
‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ about the ‘motivation at their workplace’. This is high and
concerning and could be a major impediment for PHIs’ effective job performance. To further
investigate this sensitive issue, the difference between PHI groups was examined. The results
show that the only significant effect on motivation comes from the group of PHIs with 0-5
Page | 184
years of work experience who have higher satisfaction levels (Tables 5.4.5 and 5.4.7). This
could be expected, as an individual who starts in a new job often tends to have a higher level
of motivation compared to those who have more years of experience (see, for example, Schulze
& Steyn (2013)). However, the fact that more than two-thirds of PHIs participants were
dissatisfied about the motivation at their workplace raises many concerns. Evidence shows that
poor worker motivation in health sectors can lead to poor job performance (e.g., failure to
conduct proper food safety inspection, tardiness and absenteeism) (Van Lerberghe et al., 2002;
Freeman et al., 1998).
Furthermore, evidence from this study also indicates low satisfaction levels among
PHIs with their annual performance report criteria, transportation services, PHIs’ support and
security (Table 5.3.25). There was no significant variation by gender, qualification and
municipality among the PHIs groups, except with those PHIs with less experience reporting
higher satisfaction levels. More discussion about the low satisfaction level with these job-
related issues is presented in the integration chapter in conjunction with phase 1 findings (see
Chapter 6).
5.5.6. Education and Qualification
Results from the current survey showed that most of the PHIs (56.8 %) in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia are satisfied with the diploma curriculum for training PHIs (Table 5.3.25). Evidence
also indicates that most of the PHIs (81.1 %) are of the view that the PHI qualification program
prepares them well for the job (Table .5.3.12). However, the findings regarding the quality of
education and its effectiveness in preparing the PHIs to conduct risk-based inspection based on
HACCP principles needs to be interpreted based on the other findings discussed in this study,
which indicate that the training process does not fully equip the learner for their professional
roles. Further discussion about the education and qualification is presented in the integration
chapter (see Chapter 6).
Page | 185
5.5.7. Conclusion
In this phase of the sequential exploratory study, quantitative data were gathered
through cross-sectional survey of PHIs who work across the eleven environmental departments
(municipalities) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The perceptions of the PHIs about their knowledge
and skills of risk-based food inspection, current training opportunities, and challenges and
obstacles in their work environment that affect their job performance were examined.
The current study identified a lack of knowledge and skills among the PHIs in some
areas such as HACCP, food sampling, English language as a communication tool, that are
essential to conduct risk-based food inspection as outlined by the FAO knowledge and skills
framework (see Section 2.7.2). Additionally, the study also identified deficiencies in the
existing PHIs’ training approach and in the overall training arrangements. The training
programs should be expanded on a more systematic and regular basis to facilitate the
knowledge dissemination strategies within the KTA framework (Figure 2.4), thus meeting the
identified needs of PHIs. This is to enable the PHIs as key players in the Health Protection
Domain (Figure 2.3) to conduct risk-based food safety inspection and to better protect the
community’s health from FBIs.
The next chapter brings the qualitative and the quantitative findings (Phase 1 and Phase
2 Figure 3.4) together for additional exploration and to provide further insight into the issues
under investigation.
Page | 186
CHAPTER 6: INTEGRATIONS
6.1. Introduction
This chapter considers, compares and integrates the outcomes obtained from the
qualitative and quantitative study (Phase 1 and Phase 2 Figure 3.4). Integration can strengthen
the study outcomes, mutually complement the findings from the qualitative and quantitative
approaches and highlight issues and questions for further study and analysis (Fetters et al.,
2013). In addition, the integration is the consideration of the possible alignment/agreement or
otherwise of the collected databases, adopted qualitative and quantitative methods, and their
outcomes (Fetters et al., 2013). This includes the determination of the extent to which the
qualitative and quantitative findings cohere, interpretations and/or discussions of any
agreements and disagreements. Such comparison and integration is essential in the current
study, because it involves mixed methods, the outcomes of which should be discussed together
and integrated where possible to identify, characterise and interpret any similarities and/or
differences (Classen et al., 2007; Fetters et al., 2013; Guetterman et al., 2015).
Several levels of integration could be identified and used in the process of this research.
Firstly, this project was a sequential exploratory study, in which the qualitative data collection
and analysis preceded and informed the development of the quantitative survey instrument,
thus ensuring integration at the study design (Fetters et al., 2013). The collection and analysis
of the qualitative data also informed the collection of the quantitative data through the
developed survey instrument, thus ensuring integration of the obtained data at the data and
methods level (Fetters et al., 2013). Finally, integration and interpretation at the reporting level
was achieved by the comparison and mutual interpretation of the qualitative and quantitative
findings, which are presented in this chapter.
Page | 187
Furthermore, the integration of the findings provided further details about barriers and
facilitators that could limit or prevent the target audience (PHIs) from using this knowledge;
thus, informing the 'adapt knowledge’ and ‘assess barriers’ stages within the knowledge-to-
action framework (Figure 2.4) (Graham et al., 2006). This Chapter in the next sections
systematically presents and discusses the core issues and outcomes of this study. Chapter 7.4
then serves to brings these outcomes as a summary illustrating the application within the
Knowledge Translation Framework.
6.2. Knowledge and Skills
6.2.1. Laws and Regulations
Major qualitative findings of Chapter 4 included the following:
1. Lack of clarity of the existing laws and regulations.
2. Lack of existing laws and regulations with regard to specific food safety issues,
including foods from different cultures.
3. Many laws and regulations are not current and need to be updated. Municipal
authorities should influence the relevant the relevant government agency to develop
better food safety regulations to catch up with the actual needs of, and problems in,
the industry.
Major quantitative findings of Chapter 5 included the following:
1. About 40% of all study participants complained or expressed uncertainty about the
clarity of the existing laws and regulations.
2. More than 50% of the surveyed PHIs responded that they would like the existing
laws and regulations to be improved.
Page | 188
Integration and comparison:
As identified in the FAO knowledge and skills framework (see Section 2.7.2), one of
the major areas of general knowledge and skills of the PHI is the detailed knowledge of the
existing food safety laws and regulations, including the ability to apply these laws and
regulations in practice during a food safety inspection (FAO, 2008).
The obtained quantitative outcomes are consistent with the qualitative findings. About
40% of the surveyed PHIs expressed that the current food safety laws and regulations are
insufficiently clear, and more than 50% of them desired improvements in the existing laws and
regulations, which is consistent with the qualitative findings 1 – 3. This result appears to
support the updating of existing laws and regulations and making them more appropriate for
the practical needs of PHIs and their professional activities when conducting effective and
efficient food safety inspections in restaurants. The indicated qualitative findings provide more
specific emphasis on the current needs regarding the modification of the existing laws and
regulations and indicate the specific areas of these desired improvements:
Developing and introducing specific regulations about the handling of
particular foods with high risk of contamination or spoilage.
Updating the regulations to reflect modern food inspection processes and
embrace new foods and foods from different cultures.
Thus, the complementary and mutually corroborating qualitative and quantitative
outcomes of this study highlight the need for the implementation of specific practical
recommendations to the food safety authorities in Riyadh. Additionally, any changes and
developments in the local food safety laws and regulations should be consistent with the risk-
based inspection approach to food safety.
Page | 189
6.2.2. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
Major qualitative findings of HACCP included the following:
1. The HACCP components were not part of the curriculum for the secondary diploma
(the PHI qualification prerequisite prior to 2005) and is being taught only
superficially and in basic terms within the undergraduate diploma (the current PHI
qualification prerequisite).
2. There appears to be a complete lack of any knowledge of HACCP among PHIs who
possessed the secondary diplomas.
3. Lack of detailed knowledge and skills among PHIs who possessed an undergraduate
diploma in food safety with regard to HACCP.
4. Many restaurants in Riyadh are implementing the HACCP system. However,
evaluating the HACCP system or inspecting restaurants based on HACCP
principles is not a current job requirement for the PHIs in Riyadh.
5. An Environmental Health Manager (EHM Falah #5) stated that ‘We’ve got
restaurants that apply the HACCP system, but the PHIs cannot evaluate it because
they are not qualified’. This statement was also supported by the PHIs participants.
Major quantitative findings included the following:
1. A substantial proportion (52%) of the surveyed PHIs responded that they are either
not sure or not confident about their knowledge and skills in HACCP.
2. Forty-eight per cent (48%) of the surveyed PHIs responded that they are confident
about their HACCP knowledge and its application in food inspections.
3. Sixty-three per cent (63%) of all participants identified the need for further training
in the HACCP.
Page | 190
4. There is overwhelming acceptance (85%) of participants that they would like to
have further training in risk-based food safety inspection techniques.
Integration and comparison:
HACCP is a preventative method aimed at identifying any potential hazards to food
safety, so that the causes of foodborne illnesses (FBIs) are avoided or effectively mitigated
(FAO, 2008). According to the FAO knowledge and skills framework Section 2.7.2, the
HACCP approach is risk-based, and its elements should be thoroughly understood by PHIs to
conduct effective food safety inspection. The framework also recommended that even if the
HACCP system was not implemented in food establishments, the PHI may conduct the
inspection utilising its elements and use the inspection visit as an opportunity to promote the
application of HACCP to establishments.
As can be seen from the above findings, the major qualitative and quantitative outcomes
are generally consistent with each other regarding the HACCP. It was not sufficiently
represented during the diploma studies and also, PHIs are not qualified to evaluate the HACCP
system as stated by the EHM. Further, it is not a job requirement to inspect restaurants based
on HACCP principles, which is expected, as the current practices of food safety inspection in
Riyadh are generally based on the traditional approach (Al-Kandari & Jukes, 2009). The low
level of knowledge and skills among PHIs (below 50%) established by the quantitative
approach reflects the lack of systematic teaching of the HACCP components at the educational
institutions and courses relevant to the PHI profession. This is particularly relevant to those
PHIs who gained their qualifications prior to 2005, at which time HACCP components were
not part of the learning curriculum at all.
Page | 191
Furthermore, there is some contradiction between the systematic indications from the
qualitative data about the lack of qualification and reasonable in-depth training and knowledge
in HACCP, and the quantitative outcomes showed that around 48% of the surveyed PHIs were
confident in their HACCP knowledge and skills, and its application (overconfidence). The
notion of this overestimate is further corroborated by the quantitative result which shows that
around 63% of PHIs wanted to receive further training in HACCP. Thus, it could be argued
that the unexpectedly large proportion of PHIs who are confident in their knowledge and skills
with regard to the HACCP could be caused by false confidence, particularly in this area of
knowledge and skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Flowers, 1999; Simons, 2013). As was
discussed in the previous chapter, the developed survey instrument was based on self-
evaluation of the knowledge and skills of the participating PHIs. This may cause a bias towards
overestimating the levels of knowledge and skills in the HACCP area that has not been properly
studied and practised by the participating PHIs.
In this sense, the qualitative analysis has significantly added to the quantitative
approach by corroborating the suspected reason for the relatively high (around 48%) and
apparently overestimated proportion of PHIs who perceived (incorrectly) that they were
confident in the knowledge and skills associated with the HACCP. This further reinforces the
need for training specifically targeting the essential knowledge and skills in HACCP. This
could be as a beginning stage to provide the foundation upon which the PHI can conduct risk-
based inspections with an intention to prepare PHIs who are fully certified to evaluate the
HACCP systems in future. As mentioned in the FAO framework, ‘Ideally, food inspectors will
have taken courses and been certified in the application of HACCP’ (FAO, 2008, p. 66).
Page | 192
6.2.3. Communication Skills
Major qualitative findings included the following:
1. All PHIs during the interviews agreed that they experienced communication
difficulties caused by language barriers when they delivered food safety
information to the restaurant staff.
2. Particular difficulties arose from insufficient knowledge and skills of the English
language.
3. PHIs mentioned that a new method of communication should be developed to
overcome language barriers and to ensure that PHIs and restaurant staff and owners
are able to communicate effectively.
Major quantitative findings included the following:
1. Around 80% of the surveyed PHIs in Riyadh are confident in their knowledge and
skills in communication.
2. Around 30 – 35% of the surveyed PHIs are confident in their English reading and
speaking skills.
3. Around 73% of PHIs would like further training in written and oral English.
Integration and comparison:
As also identified in the FAO knowledge and skills framework (Section 2.7.2), PHIs
must have adequate communication skills that allow them to engage effectively with different
stakeholders including management, restaurant staff and owners (FAO, 2008).
A degree of inconsistency can be seen in these above findings. It is apparent that there
is a mismatch between the first quantitative finding which shows the very high level of
confidence of PHIs in their own communication skills, and the 2-3 quantitative findings
Page | 193
demonstrating the apparent recognition of the need for further training in English language as
a communication skill. This inconsistency could be explained by accepting that the PHIs might
be correct in saying that their general communication skills are very good, and their
communication skills are only insufficient when they involve English, as described by the
qualitative finding, number 2. Another possible reason for this inconsistency is that the study
participants might not be relating significant language barriers to their personal communication
skills, potentially assuming that overcoming such barriers is somebody else’s problem, e.g. the
food business owner.
Repeated indications from the conducted interviews confirmed that insufficient skills
in spoken and written English cause a variety of problems and issues for PHIs, including
difficulties with reading food labels and any relevant instructions, communicating with
restaurant workers from different language backgrounds, conveying messages and inspection
outcomes to food managers and handlers, developing post-inspection efforts towards the
improvement of food safety. These findings are clearly in line with the second and third
quantitative findings identifying insufficient knowledge and skills in English as a widespread
communication problem and the need for further training. One of the major consequences of
the lack of English skills is the breakdown of communication between PHIs and restaurant
workers, since many of them are from non-Arabic backgrounds who are more likely to not
understand Arabic (the native language in Saudi Arabia). As a result, the restaurant workers
may not receive reasonable explanations about, and have little knowledge of, the identified
breaches of food safety and how any such breaches could be overcome, rectified and prevented.
This may result in a deadlock for the improvement of food safety and the prevention of
foodborne illnesses that cannot be overcome other than through better verbal and written
communication (including though English, which is regarded as a common communication
tool).
Page | 194
6.3. Training and Professional Development
Major qualitative findings included the following:
1. Further professional training is regarded by PHIs and their managers as one of the
major issues needed for the successful implementation of food safety inspection.
2. PHIs are dissatisfied with the variety and availability of opportunities for further
professional training.
3. Lack of relevance of the available training to PHI needs in the field.
4. Unwillingness on behalf of the management and the higher administration to
accommodate feedback from PHIs with regard to training programs.
Major quantitative findings included the following:
1. Almost 40% of the surveyed PHIs have had no additional training about food safety
since they started their job, and more than 50% did not attend any training in the
last 12 months.
2. Around 86% of the surveyed PHIs manage their own professional development.
3. Only around 35% of the surveyed PHIs agreed that training was generally available
to them.
4. More than 50% of the surveyed PHIs want more training, including in risk-based
food safety inspection techniques (around 85% of PHIs).
Integration and comparison:
These outcomes from the qualitative and quantitative analyses demonstrate the current
importance of further professional training to the PHI workforce in Riyadh. The outcomes from
both studies suggest that the participants perceived the currently existing training programs as
requiring significant improvement and expansion. Training should be delivered on a more
Page | 195
regular basis to the PHIs, so that all PHIs receive an update to their qualifications, knowledge
and skills at least once a year or whenever new developments and/or issues in the food safety
and inspection fields emerge (Wallace & Oria, 2010). It could be said that due to the
shortcoming in the current training programs, 86% of PHIs indicated that they manage their
own professional development, which is a relevant and worrying finding. That is because self-
learning is lacking input from trainers and may not guarantee sufficient levels of up-to-date
information and new developments in food safety. This also highlights the needs for a
significant overhaul of training programs.
The creation of an atmosphere of cooperation with PHIs is recommended along with
inviting them to provide feedback regarding possible improvements to the training programs
to (i) ensure training links to the real needs of PHIs in the field, and (ii) PHIs successfully
inform the development of the food safety inspection practices in Riyadh and Saudi Arabia,
based on modern risk-based food safety assessment techniques.
6.4. Education and Qualification
Major qualitative findings included the following:
1. As stated by the Diploma Coordinator, there has been no change or update to the
curriculum of the secondary diploma since its establishment in 1990 untill to 2005.
The first review of the curriculum occurred when the undergraduate diploma was
created in 2005 in order to prepare the new qualification diploma.
2. Lack of relevance of professional qualifications and education curriculum to the
PHI’s needs in the field.
3. Obsolete learning curriculum in food safety education.
Major quantitative findings included the following:
Page | 196
1. Around 23% of the surveyed PHIs in Riyadh are not satisfied with the diploma
curriculum for training of PHIs.
2. Around 28% of the surveyed PHIs in Riyadh are not sure or disagree with the
statement that the qualification program prepared them well for the job as a PHI.
Integration and comparison:
The participants in the qualitative study made multiple comments with regard to the
education curriculum during the semi-structured interviews. The resultant qualitative outcomes
demonstrate the current deficiencies in the education curriculum and the qualifying process for
PHIs in Riyadh. The subsequent collection of the quantitative data and its analysis confirmed
and complemented the concerns expressed by the PHI interview participants. For example, the
quantitative results suggested that a significant proportion of PHIs were dissatisfied with their
formal qualification and its relevance to their jobs, and this was clearly consistent with the
qualitative findings about the lack of relevance of the curriculum to the practical situations and
obsolete nature of the curriculum, as perceived by about a quarter of survey participants.
Further, an example of deficiency of the past and the currently existing education
curricula for PHIs was the absence of consistent and in-depth training in HACCP as a risk-
based inspection approach. For example, an ex-coordinator of the secondary diploma and the
current coordinator of the undergraduate diploma made the following comment:
The HACCP principles never existed as course material for the secondary diploma, but
it has been added in later years. The secondary diploma curriculum wasn’t changed for
15 years from 1990 to 2005; however, the HACCP principles have now been simply
added to the current undergraduate diploma. (Khalid #7)
Page | 197
There were no updates to the secondary diploma curriculum for 15 years which is a
worrying matter, and even though the changes and updates to the curriculum were made after
2005, the HACCP elements were presented in the current undergraduate diploma superficially.
The subsequent quantitative analysis consistently demonstrated the lack of sufficient
knowledge and skills in HACCP (discussed early in this chapter), which is consistent with the
qualitative findings. The fact that around 48% of the survey participants indicated their
confidence in the knowledge of HACCP does not contradict the qualitative findings about the
deficiencies of the current qualification curriculum. As discussed early, the relatively large
numbers of survey participants who were confident in their knowledge and skills in HACCP is
most likely associated with the overestimation of their abilities (Kruger & Dunning, 1999;
Flower, 1999; Simons, 2013), caused by the actual lack of systematic knowledge of HACCP.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the assessment about the deficiencies of the current
qualification curriculum for PHIs in Riyadh is supported by the conducted qualitative and
quantitative analyses.
6.5. Challenges and Obstacles
Major qualitative findings included the following:
1. The electronic field system ‘Raqeb’ needs improvement to better assist PHIs in
performing their food safety inspection visits.
2. Annual evaluation reports of PHIs do not focus on the PHI’s effectiveness in field
and do not reward high productivity, efficiency, and good work.
3. Lack of laws and regulations sufficiently supporting and protecting the PHIs during
the performance of their professional duties. Including enabling enforcement of the
inspection procedures (e.g., access to all premises and services to be inspected).
4. Shortcoming in the current transportation services available to the PHI.
Page | 198
5. PHIs expressed their lack of satisfaction about the inspection devices bag provided
to them.
Major quantitative findings included the following:
1. Thirty-eight per cent (38.8%) of PHIs were dissatisfied about the electronic field
system.
2. Approximately forty-three per cent (42.6%) of PHIs were dissatisfied about the
criteria of annual performance report.
3. More than 60% of PHIs were dissatisfied about the support and security provided
by the management to them.
4. About 57% of PHIs were dissatisfied about transportation service provided by the
department.
5. About forty-six per cent (45.5%) of PHIs were dissatisfied about the provided
inspection equipment in the PHI bag.
Integration and comparison:
Drawing on the above results the quantitative and qualitative findings about the issues
associated with the PHIs’ professional activities are largely complementary. In this regard, the
qualitative outcomes are useful, as they disclose the possible causes that negatively affect the
job performance of the PHIs in Riyadh. For example, both the qualitative and quantitative
analyses identified significant transportation service issues that correlate with significant
dissatisfaction of the study participants, with around 57% of the surveyed PHIs expressing their
concerns about lack and inadequacy of transportation services. Similarly, the equipment and
other contents of the inspection bag provided to PHIs also cause concerns among nearly 50%
of PHIs. The qualitative analysis provides further complementary information regarding the
inspection bag by suggesting the irrelevance of some of the devices that are not normally used
Page | 199
during the inspections, the lack of proper calibration, the obsolete nature of the provided
instruments, and the lack of adequate training on how to use some of these devices. Concerns
were raised that such equipment and lack of training causes inaccuracy and inefficiency when
using them during the food safety inspection. In addition, it was also highlighted that the
provided bags are inconvenient and too heavy to carry.
The following table presents quotation samples from participants in the qualitative
study about the electronic field system, the criteria of annual performance report, the lack of
legal protection and support for PHIs.
Table 6.1 Quotation samples from the qualitative study
NO Issue Quotations
1
Electronic field system
‘Raqeb’
The electronic field system Raqeb needs to be improved, and they
should take the inspector’s opinion into consideration. They didn’t
take our opinion when they first introduced it to us. Therefore,
disadvantages appeared. It even sometimes hinders the inspector’s
work.’ (PHI Fahd #2)
2
Annual evaluation of
PHIs
‘The PHIs’ annual evaluation report has some problems that
frustrate the PHIs. For instance, 80 per cent of the PHIs’ work is in
the field, but the annual report form criteria only focus on office
work.’ (EHM Sami #6)
3
Lack of legal protection
and support for PHIs
‘Sometimes the restaurant owner impedes and prevents the PHIs
from checking a certain room inside the restaurant because it has a
tremendous number of food safety violations… The regulations
have to be updated to solve such problems.’ (PHI Yasser #3)
‘Some PHIs work hard, but the fear of not being legally protected
discourages them from doing their job. Two weeks ago, one of the
PHIs had a problem with a restaurant owner. The owner swore at
the PHI, and he submitted a lawsuit to the authorities…’ (EHM
Sami #6)
Page | 200
A high level of consistency can be seen from the above quotations and the related
quantitative results 1 – 3. For instance, the obtained quantitative result identified that 42.6% of
the PHIs were dissatisfied about the criteria of the annual performance report. The second
quotation from the qualitative finding presented in Table 6.1 explained the issue with the PHIs’
annual evaluation report, that it is mainly focused on the PHIs’ office work, while the main
PHIs’ work is completed in the field. In this respect, the qualitative and quantitative findings
clearly complement each other and provide additional information about the possible reason
for this low level of satisfaction. It is logical that the annual report should primarily focus on
PHIs’ productivity and efficiency in the field, because the most important component of a
PHI’s work is the food safety inspection visit, which is completed in the field. Updates on the
performance review process could be achieved by considering the needs of PHIs and the nature
of their work. As argued by Nelson (2000), for a performance appraisal to be successful, it
should consider the demands and expectations of the employee because this will generate a
sense of fairness and motivate the employee to perform a better job and achieve maximum
productivity.
Furthermore, the qualitative findings outlined a lack of legal protection provided by the
administration to the PHI in performing his duties. Also, the quantitative findings highlighted
that 60% of the surveyed PHIs were dissatisfied about the support and security provided to
them. Both results demonstrate the lack of current legal protection provided to PHIs which is
an alarming finding. This presents a challenge for the administration and suggests that the
related regulations need to be revised to empower PHIs to ensure that they can perform their
inspection duties without worrying about repercussions when they find any food safety
breaches.
Page | 201
All of these challenges associated with the professional activities of PHIs are points of
serious frustration for PHIs and should be eliminated or minimised by management and higher
municipal administrations to enable Riyadh’s PHIs to conduct effective food safety
inspections.
6.6. Conclusion
This chapter identified and discussed the major qualitative and quantitative findings of
this thesis. As can be seen from the above discussions, the findings are closely aligned, either
complementing or further expanding each other to provide more information, justifications and
explanations for the conclusions drawn and the recommendations made. Such close integration
of the qualitative and quantitative outcomes is a strength of the current sequential exploratory
study. The outcomes and conclusions derived from the different methodological approaches
corroborate or complement each other, providing more support for key results and insights into
the existing major issues in the food safety inspection practices in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Many of the issues identified in the separate sections have impacts on, and relevance
to, issues from other sections. In other words, significant improvements in food safety and PHI
performance can only be achieved when considering complex measures affecting the majority
of the identified issues and concerns. This may be seen as a difficult task but, if successful, it
should result in a major improvement in the current food safety inspection practices. Moreover,
the integrated outcomes of this study are expected to facilitate the translation of the knowledge
into action (see Section 2.7.3 Knowledge-to-Action Framework) to better reach the targeted
users (PHIs) by identifying some possible barriers (e.g., lack of PHIs legal protection) and
facilitators (e.g., supportive law and regulations). Therefore, improving inspection practices,
facilitates the transition towards the risk-based food inspection approach. In addition, the
developed integrated outcomes are expected to be beneficial in the transitional period, as they
Page | 202
also identify the required changes and improvements that can provide immediate benefits even
under the existing traditional food safety inspection approach.
The next chapter will provide conclusions, actionable recommendations and strategies
based on the qualitative and quantitative findings to improve the inspection practices in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia.
Page | 203
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
7.1. Introduction
As introduced in Chapter 1, safe food is essential to sustaining life and promoting
community health and development. Access to safe food is the right of everyone as reflected
in the Declaration of the World Food Summit, convened at the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome in November 1996 (FAO, 1996). According
to the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2015), eating unsafe food causes more than 200
diseases ranging from diarrhea to cancers. Further, each year worldwide, unsafe food causes
about 600 million cases of foodborne illness (FBI) and 420,000 deaths (WHO, 2015). In 2017,
the United States (US) reported 841 FBI outbreaks and more than half of the outbreaks (489
outbreaks, accounting for 64%) were associated with eating unsafe food at restaurants (Mattson
et al., 2017). The US is not alone in its struggle, as in Australia (AUS), there were 293 FBI
outbreaks between 1995 to 2000, and restaurants were associated with the highest number of
these outbreaks (60 outbreaks, accounting for 28%) (Gould et al., 2004). In Saudi Arabia, the
number of reported FBI outbreaks has increased from 254 outbreaks in 2014 to 358 in 2018,
and more than half of these outbreaks were associated with commercial sources (e.g.,
restaurants) (MOH, 2018).
An effective and modern food safety inspection system (i.e., policies and practices) is
an essential element to prevent FBIs and protect public health (Hopper & Boutrif, 2007).
However, food inspection systems in the majority of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries (including Saudi Arabia) are characterised by significant deficiencies and are best
described as using a rather outdated ‘classic and traditional food inspection’ approach (Al-
kandari & Jukes, 2009; FAO/WHO, 2007). This approach primarily has focused on
establishing effective hygiene control and dealing with any associated food safety issues in a
Page | 204
reactive manner (Albersmeier et al., 2009; FAO, 2015). In contrast, the modern risk-based
inspection approach (whose international adoption is recommended by the FAO) is more
preventive and focuses on inspection practices and the risk factors that may cause FBIs. This
can be argued will provide better health protection (see Section 2.6. for more comparisons)
(Albersmeier et al., 2009; Hoag et. al. 2007; Hopper & Boutrif, 2007; FAO, 2015; FSIS, 2015;
Sareen, 2014).
Considering the Health Determinants Model outlined in Chapter 5 (Figure 4.1), and the
Three Domains of Public Health Model (Figure 2.5. outlined in Chapter 2), policies and
procedures play a key role in controlling infectious diseases and socioeconomic development
(Whitehead & Dahlgren, 1991; Griffiths et al., 2005; World Bank, 2018). For instance, the
current food safety inspection policies and procedures in Saudi Arabia (as mentioned above)
are traditionally based (less effective in FBI prevention and can hinder socioeconomic
development) and can be improved by moving towards the risk-based inspection approach
(Buncic, 2006; FAO, 2008; Sareen, 2014). However, the Saudi Public Health Inspector (PHI),
as a key role player in implementing these policies and procedures through the conduction of
food safety inspection, has limited technical knowledge and skills in risk-based inspection
techniques and tools (Henson & Caswell, 1999; FAO, 2008; Al-kandari & Jukes, 2009). This
creates a significant hurdle for the improvement and transformation of the current inspection
approach towards the contemporary and more effective risk-based approach.
Saudi Arabia with more than 34 million citizens is the largest economy among the GCC
countries (General Authority of Statistics, 2018; Deloitte, 2016). For the benefit of its citizens
and other neighbouring countries, it is important that the risk-based food inspection approach
is adequately adapted and introduced in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the recently developed and
adopted Saudi Vision 2030 roadmap for economic development until 2030 (Saudi Vision 2030,
n.d.) constitutes an ambitious development plan for the Saudi economy and society to ensure
Page | 205
prosperity, safety, and harmonious development for the coming decade. Within the policy
environment, Saudi Vision 2030 highlights Key Performance Indicators including at least two
major points associated with food safety and public health protection (Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.):
1. An increase in the population satisfaction index with food safety
2. A decrease in public health incidents (e.g., FBIs)
These key indicators (outlined in Section 1.1.2) underpin and reflect the rapid
development of the Saudi food industry, with approximately 52,000 facilities currently
providing food distribution to Saudi consumers (Manafa, 2019), and an expected further
increase in the number of restaurants and other food delivery outlets by nearly 50% by 2030
(Manafa, 2019; Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.). The development in the food industry is further
stimulated by other social transformations in Saudi society. For example, women’s engagement
in the labour market has increased from 14% in 1992 to 23% in 2018 (OECD, 2019; World
Bank, 2020). It is anticipated that these changes will further stimulate the rapid development of
a diverse set of restaurants and other food delivery outlets, because women will have less time
for in-home cooking and food preparation.
7.2. Significance and Strengths of the Study
The rapid changes in Saudi society and, in particular, the food industry are hindered by,
and raise serious questions and concerns about, the traditional (and outdated) food safety
inspection approach and lack of an effective food safety inspection system based on the modern
principles of risk identification and management (Koutsoumanis & Aspridou, 2016; Manning
& Soon, 2013). This becomes particularly important in the environment of the growing
complexity and diversity of food delivery to the end consumer, but the PHIs only have limited
technical knowledge and skills in modern risk-based food inspection techniques and tools (Al-
Page | 206
kandari & Jukes, 2009). At the same time, little is known about the current issues faced by
PHIs in Saudi Arabia and, more specifically, in the capital city of Riyadh.
To understand how food safety can be improved, the current study focused on the
Riyadh cohort of PHIs working under the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, who are
responsible for inspecting and enforcing food safety at the local level. The Riyadh cohort is not
necessarily representative of the entire Saudi PHI workforce, yet it provides perspectives at
both municipal service delivery and national policy levels. Although PHIs in Saudi Arabia are
responsible for a variety of environmental health issues, the scope of this research was limited
to one critical and significant area – knowledge, skills and other relevant issues associated with
food safety inspection. The performance of PHIs (a key role player in the Health Protection
Domain, Figure 2.6) in this area of their responsibilities is particularly critical, as PHIs’ abilities
to perform these duties can affect the health and safety of the wider community.
As described in Chapter 1, the major objectives of this thesis were (i) to evaluate the
knowledge and skills of Riyadh’s PHIs in risk-based food inspection according to the FAO
framework (see Section 2.7.2), (ii) to identify any barriers and issues that may influence the
effectiveness of food safety inspections, and (iii) to develop evidence-based information to
facilitate the intervention to improve the ability of Riyadh’s PHIs to conduct risk-based
inspection. The current mixed methods study is significant because it provides a better
understanding and appreciation of the current state of evaluation, control, and enforcement of
food safety. The study identified and highlighted the major critical issues and barriers in
Riyadh, representing significant challenges and obstacles preventing or impeding
improvements in food safety, effectiveness of food inspection, and transition of the food
inspection towards risk-based safety evaluation techniques. The outcomes can also help inform
implementation of the Saudi Vision 2030 roadmap (Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.) by identifying
actionable research-based strategies and recommendations for policymakers to enhance and
Page | 207
modernise the current food safety inspection system which would facilitate the achievement of
food safety related goals.
It is envisaged that the research outcomes will be particularly useful and significant in
the current transitional period of the Saudi food industry, characterised by a rapid increase in
the numbers of restaurants and other food delivery outlets in Riyadh (Manafa, 2019;
Vision2030.gov.sa). This research also provides actionable findings that can support
implementation strategies for transition to the risk-based food safety inspections, which have
been widely adopted, or are being adopted, in a number of developed and developing countries.
A key finding is that there are currently a number of significant gaps in the knowledge and
understanding of the major existing challenges in food safety inspection processes and in the
PHI workforce in Riyadh. These gaps significantly hinder the projected rapid development of
the food industry. These gaps have been particularly widened by the modern integration with
other countries, resulting in rapid introduction of new foods and food producers/distributors
from other cultures. These gaps are associated with heightened unknown risks of food
contamination, new food pathogens, and new food management regulations with which the
Saudi PHIs may not be completely familiar. There is an urgent need to safely manage this
situation on the basis of the best available food safety practices, techniques, and optimal
organisation and support of food safety inspections and the associated PHI workforce in Riyadh
and the broader society of Saudi Arabia. This research has significantly contributed to filling
this knowledge gap by conducting systematic cross-validating analyses of the existing issues
and their causes in the food safety inspection system in Riyadh on the basis of the existing
perceptions of PHIs as frontline workers, their managers, and the related educational
institutions.
One of the strengths of the current study is the potential that these outcomes could be
generalisable (across Saudi Arabia and elsewhere e.g., Gulf States) in terms of knowledge and
Page | 208
skills of PHIs, laws and regulations (see Section 7.4.2). The results can be reasonably
generalised because all PHIs across the country have the same qualifications, and the laws and
regulations are centrally administered (nationally). However, any such generalisation should
be approached with a degree of caution, as the local logistical problems and resulting issues
associated with food safety inspections could differ in other administrative regions (see Section
7.5 for a more detailed discussion).
In addition, the study is important and useful for further large-scale population studies
to determine and characterise other issues and needs (see Section 7.6) associated with the
effective performance of PHIs to develop and improve food safety in Saudi Arabia and other
neighbouring countries.
7.3. Methodological Aspects of the Study
This research was a sequential exploratory study design (Figure 3.4) involving
qualitative (Phase 1) and quantitative (Phase 2) approaches. The role of the initial qualitative
approach was two-fold. Firstly, the semi-structured interviews were conducted with PHIs,
Environmental Health Managers, and the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma in Riyadh.
During these interviews, major themes and sub-themes characterising the food safety
inspection system in Riyadh were identified on the basis of two sources: (1) the existing
literature on food safety in other countries including the FAO knowledge and skills framework,
and (2) the common issues and concerns raised by the interviewees based on their professional
experiences and intrinsic knowledge of the food safety inspection practices in Riyadh. The
identified major themes and sub-themes were subsequently used for the development of the
survey instrument to quantitatively evaluate the prevalence and importance of the formulated
issues and resultant questions under the identified themes and sub-themes. From this point of
Page | 209
view, the qualitative analysis was used to inform the development of the valid quantitative
instrument for surveying PHIs in Riyadh.
Secondly, the qualitative analysis was also used to understand, in more detail, the
quantitative findings (see Chapter 6), and to expand these into the broader context of food
safety in Riyadh and Saudi Arabia generally. From this point of view, the qualitative analysis
was complementary to the quantitative analysis and enabled further validation, explanation,
and expansion of the quantitative findings. Thus, the use of the sequential exploratory design
combining the qualitative and quantitative methodologies was particularly reliable and
productive in the current study, ensuring both the validity and reliability of the outcomes, as
well as in-depth analysis and interpretation.
7.4. Major Findings and Actionable Recommendations
7.4.1. Introduction
The findings and actionable recommendations were developed and guided by the
knowledge-to-action (KTA) framework (Figure 2.4) to better reach the targeted users (Graham
et al., 2006). As discussed in section 2.7.3, the scope of the current study covered the first 3
stages (see Figure 2.5) within the action cycle journey of KTA framework. These stages are (i)
Identify need and select knowledge, (ii) Adapt knowledge to the local context and, (iii) Identify
barriers to knowledge use. See Figure 7.1. for linked and concrete examples.
Page | 210
Figure 7.1 Example of outcomes linked to KTA framework
The following evidence-based 23 major findings and 12 recommendations and
actionable strategies were developed to inform the authorities in Saudi Arabia and to facilitate
the intervention by taking this evidence-based information to the implementation stages (stage
4 to 7) within the KTA framework action cycle.
7.4.2. The Following Summarises 23 Major Findings:
Demographic based findings
1. The overall gender composition of the PHI workforce in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is
significantly dominated by, or biased towards, male PHIs. This is different from other
Stage 1: Identify need and select knowledge
• Identify need > The knowledge and skills needed for PHIs to conduct risk-based food inspections.
• Select knowledge > FAO knowledge and skills framework, see Section 2.7.2 (e.g., Communication skills area).
Stage 2: Adapt knowledge to local
context
• Knowledge > Gaps were identified among the PHIs in communication skills.
• Required adjustments to fill the gaps > English Language as a common communication tool with restaurants workers (from non-Arabic background).
Stage 3: Identify barrier and facilitator
to knowledge use
• Individual level: Barriers: insufficient skills in English language and lack of motivation among PHIs. Facilitators: up-to-date English skills - study identified that motivation can be enhanced through improving PHIs annual evaluation criteria.
• Organisational and system level: Barriers: lack of training programs - lack of motivation at workplace. Facilitators: appropriate training program - supportive annual evaluation criteria.
Page | 211
countries where the gender compositional trends are the opposite (Pham et al., 2010;
Johnson et al., 2014). These differences appear cultural in origin, an issue addressed by
Saudi Vision 2030. (see Section 5.5.2)
2. Female PHIs have significantly lower levels of knowledge and skills compared to their
male counterparts, which could be related to their different educational background
caused by the limited access for females to the food safety diploma (qualification
requirement of PHI profession) (tvtc.gov.sa, 2019). (see Section 5.5.2)
3. Female PHIs are also three times less likely to access further professional training in food
safety during their careers than males, which could be one of the causes of their lower
levels of knowledge and skills, and may constitute a significant risk to food safety.
Additionally, no difference was identified in the likelihood for male/female PHIs to
receive professional training over the last 12 months. (see Section 5.5.4)
4. The PHI workforce in Riyadh is dominated by relatively young PHIs (under 39 years of
age), which differs from the age composition of the PHI workforce in some developed
countries (Johnson et al., 2014; Pham et al., 2010). At the same time, PHIs in Riyadh
have approximately the same work experience in food safety as those in these developed
countries. (see Section 5.5.2)
5. The current qualification requirement of a specialised 2-year undergraduate diploma
(tertiary level) for the PHI profession has raised the qualification requirements in Saudi
Arabia closer to those in several other developed and developing countries (Raphael &
Briant, 2006; Butler-Jones, 2008; Seed et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2014; Maldonado-
Simán et al., 2019) (see Section 2.5 for more details). However, prior to 2005 the
qualification requirement was only a secondary school diploma (nontertiary) which has
resulted in significantly lower levels of formal qualifications among the PHI workforce
in Riyadh. (see Section 5.5.2)
Page | 212
6. For the secondary diploma qualification prior to 2005, the Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Points (HACCP) elements were not part of the curriculum, and currently are
being taught only superficially and in basic terms within the current undergraduate
diploma. (see Section 4.3)
Knowledge and Skills based findings
7. Generally, the majority (>50%) of the PHIs reported being confident in different
knowledge and skills areas of risk-based food inspection (e.g., law and regulation and
communication). Areas in which the majority (<50%) were less confident include
HACCP, food sampling techniques and the English language as a communication tool
(further details below). (see Section 5.5.3)
8. Although around 48% of the PHIs were confident about their HACCP knowledge and its
application in food inspections, this is likely to be false confidence and confidence of the
ignorant (Dunning-Kruger effect) particularly with the HACCP knowledge and skills
area due to strong evidence from both studies (see Section 6.2.2 for further detail)
(Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Simons, 2013).
9. There are significant gaps in knowledge and skills in food sampling techniques as only
about 40% of the surveyed PHIs expressed confidence. (see Section 5.5.3)
10. There are risks in communication and using important information for decision making
as insufficient levels of proficiency in English (around 65 - 70% of the surveyed PHIs)
were identified by qualitative and quantitative data as one of the most significant issues
preventing or impeding communication with foreign (from non-Arabic background)
workers in restaurants, reading and evaluating labels and handling instructions. These
issues are of high importance, as labelling is often in English, and this is the common
language for communication with the many foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. (see Section
6.2.3)
Page | 213
11. About 65% to 70% of the surveyed PHIs were confident with their knowledge and skills
on sanitation and hygiene. However, the fact that almost half of surveyed PHIs were not
sure or not confident with their knowledge and skills in food microbiology provides
potential implications for conducting adequate sanitation and hygiene assessments. This
is because understanding the role of microorganisms in FBIs is important for
understanding the principles of food sanitation and hygiene (Marriott et al., 2006). Poor
sanitation and hygiene practices are one of the leading causes of FBIs and the PHIs
should have adequate knowledge and skills to ensure compliance of food handlers with
best practices (Afifi et al., 2012; Michaels et al., 2004; Pham, 2010). (see Section 5.5.3)
12. Almost half of the surveyed PHIs were not sure or not confident about their knowledge
and skills in scientific research and collecting evidence. It should be noted that scientific
research is not a key area of knowledge and skills for conducting a risk-based inspection.
However, the increasing complexity in the food supply chain requires specialist PHIs in
narrow areas of expertise, such as using research methods, to inform evidence-based
decision-making in food safety (CIPHI. 2018; Wallace and Oria, 2010). (see Section
5.5.3)
13. PHIs desire further training. Around 60% of the surveyed PHIs would like further
training in emerging food safety issues, foods from different cultures, and emerging food
pathogens. Therefore, this should be one of the major foci of the required modifications
in the PHI training system in Riyadh. (see Section 5.5.4)
14. The majority of the surveyed PHIs need further training in how to use the inspection
devices provided to them (66%) and sampling tools and techniques (56%). (see Section
5.5.3)
15. More than 65% of surveyed PHIs expressed the need for further training in the causes
and prevention of foodborne outbreaks and illnesses. (see Section 5.5.4)
Page | 214
Inspection, training system and work environment-based findings
16. Lack of clarity of existing food safety laws and regulations in Riyadh and the need for
their improvement, are also among the most significant concerns of the surveyed and
interviewed study participants (> 50%). (see Section 5.5.2)
17. About 38% of the PHIs were dissatisfied about the electronic field system ‘Raqeb’. It
was identified by the participants of the qualitative study that the system needs to be
updated based on the PHIs’ feedback and suggestions to increase its efficiency. (see
Section 6.5)
18. On-going professional development and training is lacking. Almost 40% of the surveyed
PHIs indicated that they had not received any professional training since they started
work as a PHI, and 86% of them indicated that they managed their own professional
development. This is a major concern demonstrating the lack of regular training,
upskilling and updates to the PHI qualifications, and is contrary to the basic principles
and best food safety practices in developed countries (Wallace & Oria, 2010). (see
Section 5.5.4)
19. High quality training is one of important aspects for growing confident, professional and
effective PHIs. However, poor availability of training is another major identified issue,
with only 35% of the surveyed PHIs being satisfied with training availability. (see
Section 5.5.4)
20. There was a general consensus among the Riyadh PHIs that (i) the currently existing
training programs are insufficient, (ii) should be expanded on a more regular basis and
(iii) involve a reward element for successful completion of any training courses.
However, the majority of the participants expressed their willingness to attend further
training even if there are no rewards. (see Section 5.5.4 and Section 6.3)
Page | 215
21. The overwhelming majority (93%) of the PHIs stated that regular meetings with
inspectors from other agencies were the most useful resource for training and
professional development, with the second most useful resource being
seminars/workshops (92.7%). (see Section 5.3.4)
22. The two top strategies preferred by the PHIs for receiving information regarding food
safety were WhatsApp messenger (72.4%) and Workshop/Seminar (64.5%). (see Section
5.5.4)
23. A high level of dissatisfaction was found amongst the PHIs. The highest levels of
dissatisfaction were caused by:
a) motivation at workplace (69%)
b) lack of support and security provided by the management (63%)
c) the provided transportation service (57%)
d) the criteria of the PHI annual performance report (42%).
These are points of serious frustration for PHIs which could be seen as a significantly
impeding factors (barriers) for the improvement in food safety inspection practices. (see
Section 6.5)
7.4.3. Recommendations and Actionable Strategies Based on the Major Findings
Demographic based recommendations and strategies
1. Allow and support females to access the diploma training program in food safety, thereby
increasing the number of qualified PHIs. This recommendation aligns with the currently
promoted empowerment of women in Saudi Arabia (OECD, 2019; World Bank, 2020;
Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.), and would also increase female participation in the PHI
workforce, as in other developed and developing countries. (Based on findings 1 and 2)
2. Given the historic disparity in the access of further professional training in food safety
for females PHIs, it is recommended extending the initiatives which resulted in recent
Page | 216
improvements, so this gap is closed. Prioritising the engagement of female PHI’s in
training to increase their level of knowledge and skills will continue the current positive
trend. (Based on findings 2 and 3)
3. It is also recommended that the PHI qualification curriculum be improved to meet the
knowledge and skills requirements for risk-based inspections. This includes in depth
training on HACCP principles since it provides important knowledge and skills necessary
to conduct a risk-based inspection. Curriculum development processes may also benefit
from the FAO knowledge and skills framework (see Section 2.7.2) which has been used
to develop the survey instrument for the current research. Other course accreditation
policies in developed countries that have implemented the risk-based inspection such as
the Australian Environmental Health Course Accreditation Policy (2014) and the
Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors Board of Certification Instructional
Objectives (2018) could also be considered. (Based on findings 5-8)
Knowledge and Skills based recommendations and strategies
4. It is recommended that the major areas of knowledge and skills for systematic
professional training of PHIs in Riyadh (Based on findings 6-11 and 13-16) focus on the
following identified areas:
a. Existing food safety laws and regulations, and any changes in this area
b. Principles of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
c. Advanced training in written and spoken English as the common language for
communication with restaurants’ workers who don’t speak Arabic,
understanding food label information and handling instructions, and effectively
communicating any new information about food safety issues and techniques
d. Use of inspection devices provided in the PHI bag
Page | 217
e. Training in food safety techniques relevant to food from different cultures
f. Training in food sampling techniques
g. New advances in microbiology, methods of microorganism control
h. Emerging food pathogens and causes and prevention of foodborne illnesses
and outbreaks.
5. It is recommended that, because of the ever-increasing complexity in food safety issues,
the PHI workforce be stratified to include PHIs that are specialised in particular areas of
food safety expertise such as using research tools and research analysis to inform
evidence-based decision making in food safety. This would be in line with the trends in
other countries (Wallace & Oria, 2010). (Based on finding 12)
Inspection, training system and work environment-based recommendations and strategies
6. It is necessary to update and improve the clarity and consistency of the laws and
regulations which are a crucial element of the inspection system (Based on finding 16).
The improvement of clear food safety laws and their detailed knowledge will be
paramount in empowering PHIS and their inspection activities (FAO, 2008). Therefore,
it is recommended that the following major two areas of improvements are addressed:
a. Development and introduction of specific regulations about handling of
particular foods with high risk of contamination or spoilage including foods
from different cultures
b. Development and introduction of new laws and regulations supporting and
protecting PHIs during the performance of their professional duties and
enabling enforcement of the inspection procedures and relevant punitive
actions. This will become even more important if more female PHIs are
employed due to the nature of the inspecting role.
Page | 218
7. It is recommended that the future development of the food inspection system and its laws
and regulations are clearer, more structured and support the risk-based food inspection
approach. (Based on finding 16)
8. It is recommended to improve the current electronic field system ‘Raqeb’ taking into
consideration the PHIs’ opinions since they are the main users of the system. The issues
and obstacles associated with the system are of a ‘programming’ nature that affect the
efficiency of inspection performance, and it can be resolved through better cooperation
between the main user (PHIs), their managers and the system developer. (Based on
finding 17)
9. It is recommended to significantly modify and develop an effective professional training
system for PHIs. An evidence-informed strategy would include introducing a mandatory
regular training system. For example, the food safety guidelines and procedures at the
federal and local levels in the US are subject to constant change. All inspection staff,
regardless of their experience and years of practice, are required to undergo re-training
in order to standardise their approach to food safety assessment procedures (Newbold et
al., 2008). It is recommended that the same approach be adopted for PHIs in Saudi
Arabia. (Based on findings 18-22)
10. It’s recommended to provide a network of tangible rewards and incentives for the
successful completion of training courses. For example, linking the success of training
and high qualifications to the annual performance report, promotion schemes, salary
scales, and professional recognition (Kerr & Slocum, 1987; Ong & Teh, 2012; Munap et
al., 2013; Caza et al., 2015). (Based on findings 18-22)
11. A constructive atmosphere of cooperation between the management and PHIs should be
created, including inviting PHIs to provide feedback regarding improvements in the
Page | 219
training programs to ensure they link to the real world needs of PHIs in the field. (Based
on findings 19 and 20)
12. The levels of motivation in the PHI work environment were low which could be seen as
a significant barrier/impeding factor for the improvement in the food inspection practices
in Riyadh (see, for example, Franco et al., (2002)). To enhance motivation, (Based on
findings 18- 23) it is recommended to:
a) improve the legal protection for PHIs to ensure that they can perform their duties
without worrying about repercussions when they find food safety violations in
restaurants regardless of the influence of its owners
b) improve the PHIs’ annual evaluation criteria taking into consideration the needs
of the PHIs and the nature of their work. This will generate a sense of fairness,
which is itself a significant motivator (DeNisi et al., 2006; Nelson, 2000)
c) improve the transportation service including car insurance and sufficient
allowances for fuel
d) develop a system of rewards for high achievements and qualifications
e) introduce sufficient stimuli to undertake further training (in addition to the
introduction of the compulsory training, as recommended above).
7.5. Study Limitations
The study design is subject to several limitations, the first phase of the study was limited
to conducting semi-structured interviews with only seven participants (four PHIs, two
Environmental Health Managers, and the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma). The
responses from the study participants, along with the FAO framework informed the
development of the survey items (second phase). However, including only seven participants
may have limited these findings.
Page | 220
Another limitation of the current study was the self-evaluation nature of the developed
survey instrument. Self-evaluation is based on subjective perceptions of the surveyed
individuals and can introduce bias in the final quantitative outcomes (Mabe & West, 1982;
Faddar et al., 2018). It is also important to understand that any self-evaluating survey
instruments may be subject to sampling bias, depending on the composition of the analysed
cohort of participants (Mabe & West, 1982). For example, in the current study, the considered
cohort of PHIs was heavily biased towards male PHIs. This was representative of the overall
gender composition of the PHI workforce in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It could also be argued that
the considered PHI cohort was adequate for addressing the existing workforce realities and the
associated needs of PHIs in Saudi Arabia, apart, possibly, from the small number of female
PHIs with limited areas of responsibilities. Because of the significant dominance of the males
in the study, the applicability of the obtained study outcomes to female PHIs, their needs and
any associated issues could potentially be limited.
Although the potential generalisability of the obtained outcomes was described as one
of the significant strengths of the current study (see Section 7.2), logistical services and their
availability could differ in other administrative regions of Saudi Arabia and in other countries.
These differences could arise because each administrative region has its own budget and
management. This could create significant logistic differences depending on environmental
factors, the electronic field inspection system, transportation networks and communication.
Other limitations associated with the adopted analytical methodology include:
a. Possible selection/responder bias. All 502 PHIs in Riyadh (the complete sampling
frame) were invited to participate in the current study. However, only 301 (60%)
completed the survey instrument and participated in the study. As a result, the obtained
quantitative results may reflect selection bias in that the results do not take into account
Page | 221
the perceptions and opinions of 201 (40%) PHIs in Riyadh who decided not to
participate in the study or were excluded from the study on the grounds of non-
completion of the survey. The reasons for non-participation are not known. It is not
possible to determine the extent of this potential bias as no information is available for
those who choose not to participate. Further, it is noted that 40.5% of participants did
not indicate the broad category of workplace, suggesting a caution of participants to
potentially identify themselves. The choice not to identify their workplace limits the
generalisation of the workplace comparisons.
b. Potential measurement bias may be present by the method of delivery of the survey and
collection of the outcomes. The questionnaire was distributed electronically through
email and WhatsApp, and the responses were also collected electronically. This
approach favoured those who are confident and comfortable with electronic methods of
communication. Therefore, the study findings may be biased by not including the
opinions of those PHIs who decided not to participate in the study because of the
electronic method of survey delivery and response collection.
c. Of the 201 PHIs in Riyadh who decided not to participate in the study, a total of 120
started the survey but decided not to complete it. This may indicate other possible
limitations associated with non-participation (in addition to the possible bias against
PHIs who were not comfortable with the electronic means of communication). Several
potential reasons for this non-participation include: (1) possible lack of willingness to
commit time to complete the survey (e.g., perception that the survey is long or too
difficult); (2) apathy and lack of motivation towards their profession and lack of
willingness to make a difference; (3) deterrence by some of the survey questions; (4)
fear of being identified. Each of these potential reasons creates additional possible
limitations of the current study, which are associated with the potential non-inclusion
Page | 222
of the interests and opinions of the PHI groups that might be characterized by these
reasons.
d. The reasons and limitations of sampling PHIs only from Riyadh have been described
earlier in Section 7.2.
7.6. Future Research
Several areas of future research were identified as a result of this study. For example,
the conducted analysis was mainly relevant to the identification and characterisation of any
issues associated with the implementation of food inspections in Riyadh. It would be useful
and important in future to extend the data collection and analysis to involve other areas of Saudi
Arabia in order to identify, if any, differences in food safety activities and needs in different
areas of Saudi Arabia. It would also be important to directly compare the quantitative outcomes
in relation to food safety issues in Saudi Arabia with other countries to enable better
understanding of any differences and to take them into account when applying the experience
of other countries to Saudi Arabia.
Other proposed areas of future research include:
a. Further study about moving the current recommendations and the actionable strategies
to the implementation stages 4-7 of the KTA framework (see Figure 2.5) which include
how to put the strategies in place, ensuring the necessary financial and human resources,
monitoring the progress and evaluating the outcomes.
b. Study about the cost-effectiveness analysis or a Health Technology Assessment (HTA)
following the Canadian Model for HTA of Canada’s CADTH. HTA is an important
part of decision making in Saudi Arabia, where there a commitment to the efficient use
of public funds also consistent with Saudi Vision 2030.
Page | 223
c. Further study about possible improvements in the PHI qualification curricula that
would address existing national issues, while simultaneously reflecting the dominant
international trends in risk-based food safety inspections. Future research may consider
course accreditation policies such as The Australian Environmental Health Course
Accreditation Policy (2014) and The Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors
Board of Certification Instructional Objectives (2018).
d. Further study into the feasibility and benefits of stratification of the PHI workforce in
Saudi Arabia to address the rapidly increasing complexity in food safety issues and to
train and involve PHIs specialised in particular areas of food safety expertise. This
would be in line with the wider trends in other countries (Wallace & Oria, 2010).
e. Detailed study of the reasons for the demotivation of the PHI workforce, including any
potential differences in motivation levels among PHIs in different departments in
Riyadh, and identification of ways to boost motivation among PHIs in Riyadh.
f. Although this research focused on enhancing the inspection system for the network of
restaurants and other food outlets delivering food to the end consumer, further research
is recommended to involve other steps in the chain of ‘from farm-to-fork’ food
production, including food transportation, storage, and delivery (FAO 2008, p.10). This
has the potential to further strengthen the overall national food control system in Saudi
Arabia.
7.7. Conclusion
This thesis provided twenty-three major findings and identified thirteen actionable
opportunities and recommendations guided by the KTA framework (see Section 2.7.3). This is
to enhance the current inspection system and improve the knowledge and skills of the Saudi
PHIs to conduct risk-based food inspection based on the FAO framework (see Section 2.7.2).
Page | 224
The thesis also described the significance and importance of the work and its numerous
outcomes, which will be important for the successful development of the concept and practices
of food safety inspection in Riyadh and Saudi Arabia generally, including the anticipated
transition of the food safety inspection system towards the risk-based approach. The conducted
research and findings of this thesis represent a significant contribution to strengthen the Saudi
National food control system, achieving the relevant Saudi Vision 2030 goals, providing safer
food for consumers and protecting the community from FBIs.
Page | 225
References
Ababouch, L. (2000). The role of government agencies in assessing HACCP. Food Control, 11(2), 137-142.
Abulreesh, H.H. & Organji, S.R. (2011). The Prevalence of Multidrug-resistant Staphylococci in Food and the Environment of Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Research Journal of Microbiology, 6(6), 510–523. http://doi.org/10.3923/jm.2011.510.523
Adams, C., Newcomb, P., Smith, A.& Withaeger, J. (2009). 001 – ‘PICO de Practice’ An Easy Interactive Method to Learn the PICO Format for Clinical Questions. Journal of pediatric nursing, 24(2), e1-e1. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2008.11.003
Albersmeier, F., Schulze, H., Jahn, G., & Spiller, A. (2009). The reliability of third-party certification in the food chain: From checklists to risk-oriented auditing. Food Control, 20(10), 927-935.
Allahmorad, Sidiqa (2020). Education System Profiles. Education in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://wenr.wes.org/2020/04/education-in-saudi-arabia
Afifi, H. S., & Abushelaibi, A. A. (2012). Assessment of personal hygiene knowledge, and practices in Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. Food Control, 25(1), 249-253.
Alboliteeh, M. (2015). Choosing to become a nurse in Saudi Arabia and the lived experience of new graduates: a mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/92214
Almanza, B. A., & Nesmith, M. S. (2004). Food safety certification regulations in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health, 66(9), 10.
Armstrong, P. (2016). Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Centre for Teaching.
Al-Asfour, A., Tlaiss, H. A., Khan, S. A., & Rajasekar, J. (2017). Saudi women’s work challenges and barriers to career advancement. Career Development International, 22(2), 184-199.
Al-Bakr, F., Bruce, E. R., Davidson, P. M., Schlaffer, E., & Kropiunigg, U. (2017). Empowered but not equal: Challenging the traditional gender roles as seen by university students in Saudi Arabia. In FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education (Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 3).
Al-Goblan, A.S.& Jahan, S. (2010). Surveillance for foodborne illness outbreaks in Qassim, Saudi Arabia, 2006. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 7(12), 1559–1562. http://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2010.0638
Page | 226
Aljoudi, A.S., Al-Mazam A., & Choudhry, A.J. (2010). Outbreak of food borne Salmonella among guests of a wedding ceremony: The role of cultural factors. Journal of Family & Community Medicine, 17(1), 29–34. http://doi.org/10.4103/1319-1683.68786
Al-Kandari, D., & Jukes, D. J. (2012). The food control system in Saudi Arabia – Centralizing food control activities. Food control, 28(1), 33-46.
Al-Kandari, D., & Jukes, D. J. (2009). A situation analysis of the food control systems in Arab Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Food Control, 20(12), 1112-1118.
Almazroui, M., Islam, M. N., Jones, P. D., Athar, H., & Rahman, M. A. (2012). Recent climate change in the Arabian Peninsula: seasonal rainfall and temperature climatology of Saudi Arabia for 1979–2009. Atmospheric Research, 111, 29-45.
Al-Mazrou, Y.Y. (2004). Food poisoning in Saudi Arabia. Potential for prevention? Saudi Medical Journal, 25(1), 11–14.
Al-Mutairi, S., Connerton, I., & Dingwall, R. (2015). Food safety organisations in Saudi Arabia–Organisational, historical and future analysis. Food Control, 47, 478-486.
Alomirah, H. F., Al-Zenki, S. F., Sawaya, W. N., Jabsheh, F., Husain, A. J., Al-Mazeedi, H. M., & Jukes, D. (2010). Assessment of the food control system in the State of Kuwait. Food control, 21(4), 496-504.
Alsaleh, S.A. (2015). Food Safety Perception and Information Needs of Public Health Inspectors in Hail Region of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Cross-Sectional Survey (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Queensland University of Technology. Australia.
Alsayeqh, A. F. (2015). Foodborne disease risk factors among women in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Food Control, 50, 85-91.
Al-Tawfiq, J.A. & Memish, Z.A. (2012). The Hajj: updated health hazards and current recommendations for 2012. Euro Surveillance: Bulletin Européen Sur Les Maladies Transmissibles. European Communicable Disease Bulletin, 17(41), 20295.
Amankwaa, L. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23(3), 121-127.
Andergassen, M., Behringer, R., Finlay, J., Gorra, A., & Moore, D. (2009). Weblogs in higher education: Why do students (not) blog? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7, 203–214. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ872405
Andrew, S., & Halcomb, E. (2009). Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences: John Wiley & Sons.
Bacchetti, P. (2010). Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Medicine, 8, 17. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-17
Page | 227
Ballard, C. (2009). Food safety (what if we do nothing?). London: Franklin Watts.
Balnaves, M., &Caputi, P. (2001). Introduction to quantitative research methods: An investigative approach. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Baumbusch, J. L., Kirkham, S. R., Khan, K. B., McDonald, H., Semeniuk, P., Tan, E., & Anderson, J. M. (2008). Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Research in nursing & health. Research in nursing & health, 31(2), 130-140.
Becker, G. S., & Porter, D. V. (2007, February). The federal food safety system: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Bell, J. (1999) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blanca, M. J., et al. (2017). "Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?" Psicothema 29(4): 552-557.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Cognitive domain.
Boeck, E. D., Mortier, A. V., Jacxsens, L., Dequidt, L., & Vlerick, P. (2017). Towards an extended food safety culture model: Studying the moderating role of burnout and job stress, the mediating role of food safety knowledge and motivation in the relation between food safety climate and food safety behavior. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 62, 202-2014. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.01.004
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Broughton, E. I., & Walker, D. G. (2010). Policies and practices for aquaculture food safety in China. Food Policy, 35(5), 471-478.
Bryan, F. L., & World Health Organization. (1992). Hazard analysis critical control point evaluations: a guide to identifying hazards and assessing risks associated with food preparation and storage. World Health Organization.
Buncic, S. (2006). Integrated food safety and veterinary public health. Wallingford, UK: CABI Pub.
Butler-Jones, D. (2008). The Chief Public Health Officer's Report on the State of Public Health in Canada: 2008. Public Health Agency of Canada.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. doi:10.1177/1468794106058877
Page | 228
Campbell, B. (2010). Applying knowledge to generate action: A community‐based knowledge translation framework. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 30(1), 65-71.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Inspection Modernization. (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-aboutcfia sujetacia/STAGING/text texte/acco_modernization_casechange_pdf_1337316954606_eng.pdf
Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors (n.d.). How To Become An Environmental Public Health Professional (EPHP). Retrieved from: https://www.ciphi.on.ca/career
Cates, S. C., Anderson, D. W., & Brown, P. A. (2001). Traditional versus hazard analysis and critical control point-based inspection: Results from a poultry slaughter project. [Abstract]. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search DatabaseSearch Term Search, 64(6), 826-832. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11403133
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Improved Food Inspection Model. (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the cfia/accountability/inspection-modernization/final-model/eng/1372168382925/1372178578738?chap=5
Caraher, M., & Dowler, E. (2007). Food projects in London: Lessons for policy and practice—A hidden sector and the need for more unhealthy puddings… sometimes'. Health Education Journal, 66(2), 188-205.
Casella, G. and R. L. Berger (2021). Statistical inference, Cengage Learning.
Casella, G., & Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical inference (Vol. 2): Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA.
Caza.A, Mccarter.W.M and North Carft. B.G (2015). Performance benefits of reward choice: a procedural justice perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(2) 184–199.
CDC. (2011). CDC - 2011 Estimates of Foodborne Illness. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Available at: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/5/5/99-0502_article.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, March 18). Food Safety. Retrieved June 21, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/foodborne-germs.html
Cerit, C. M. (2015). Studying the Presence of Adultery, Fraudulent Imitation and Food Pathogens within Processed Meat Products (Such as Salami, Sausage, Braised Meat) using DNA Typing and PCR Procedures. Global Journal of Medical Research, 15(3).
Cerit, H., DÜMEN, E., Sezgin, F. H., Ergin, S., & Bayrakal, G. M. (2015). PCR assay for identification of animal species in different ready to eat raw meat samples. Kafkas Univ Vet Fac Jrnl, 21(5), 777-779.
Page | 229
Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16, 255-262. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/854984835?pq-origsite=gscholar
Cheng, J. H., & Sun, D. W. (2015). Recent applications of spectroscopic and hyperspectral imaging techniques with chemometric analysis for rapid inspection of microbial spoilage in muscle foods. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14(4), 478-490
Choi, J., Kushner, K. E., Mill, J., & Lai, D. W. (2012). Understanding the language, the culture, and the experience: Translation in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11, 652-665.
Ciliska, D., Thomas, H., & Buffett, C. (2008). An Introduction to Evidence-Informed Public Health and a Compendium of Critical Appraisal Tools for Public health Practice. -Ontario. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/b331668f85bc6357f262944f0aca38c14c89c5a4.pdf
Clark, VL Plano, and John W. Creswell. ‘Designing and conducting mixed methods research.’ vol 3 (2011): 93-94.
Clark, V. L. P. (2019). Meaningful integration within mixed methods studies: Identifying why, what, when, and how. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 106-111.
Classen S., Lopez, E. D. S., Winter, S., Awadzi, K. D., Ferree, N., Garvan, C. W. 2007. Population-based health promotion perspective for older driver safety: Conceptual framework to intervention plan. Clinical Interventions in Aging 2(4), 677–693.
Clement, J.(2019, July 22) Share of population in selected countries who are active WhatsApp users as of 3rd quarter 2017. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/291540/mobile-internet-user-whatsapp/
Collins, E. J. (1993). Food adulteration and food safety in Britain in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Food policy, 18(2), 95-109.
Connelly, L. M. (2008). Pilot studies. Medsurg Nursing: Official Journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, 17(6), 411-412.
Cooper, E. (2009). Creating a culture of professional development: A milestone pathway tool for registered nurses. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40(11), 501-508.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Sydney: Pearson.
Page | 230
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2, 53-106.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications.
Crim, S. M., Iwamoto, M., Huang, J. Y., Griffin, P. M., Gilliss, D., Cronquist, A. B., ... & Lathrop, S. (2014). Incidence and trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food—Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 US sites, 2006–2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 63(15), 328-32.
Commonly through food—Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 US sites, 2006–2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 63(15), 328-32.
Conditions for admission to the diploma program. (2019) Retrieved from https://www.tvtc.gov.sa/Arabic/TrainingUnits/CollegesOfTechnology/rct/Trainings/Pages/AdmissionRequirements.aspx
Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 1, p. 3.
Davies, B., Brough, M., & Johnstone, E. (2014). Food safety: Maximising impact by understanding the food business context. Sydney: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, University of Technology, Sydney.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? International Journal of Market research, 50(1), 61-77. doi:10.1177/147078530805000106
DC Health (2020). Understanding food establishment inspections. Retrieved from https://dchealth.dc.gov/service/understanding-food-establishment-inspections
DeFranzo, S. (2011). What’s the difference between qualitative and quantitative research? Retrieved on 3 January 2020 from: https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/qualitative-vs-quantitative-research/
Deloitte. (2016). Deloitte GCC Powers of Construction 2016: The Funding Equation.
DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. management and Organization Review, 2(2), 253-277.
De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
Page | 231
DeWaal, C. S. (1999). Food safety inspections: A call for rational reorganization. Food & Drug LJ, 54, 453.
DiPietro, R. B., Parsa, H. G., & Gregory, A. (2011). Restaurant QSC inspections and financial performance: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
DiStefano, C., et al. (2009). "Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 14(1): 20.
Egan, M. B., Raats, M. M., Grubb, S. M., Eves, A., Lumbers, M. L., Dean, M. S., & Adams, M. R. (2007). A review of food safety and food hygiene training studies in the commercial sector. Food Control, 18(10), 1180-1190.
Elmsallati, N. A. (2011). Preliminary assessment of the food control systems in Saudi Arabia. In Salford Postgraduate Annual Research Conference (p. 116).
Environmental Health Committee (enHealth) 2009, enHealth Environmental Health Officer Skills and Knowledge Matrix, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15, 195-219. doi:10.1108/10662240510590360
Evans, M. R., Meldrum, R., Lane, W., Gardner, D., Ribeiro, C. D., Gallimore, C. I., & Westmoreland, D. (2002). An outbreak of viral gastroenteritis following environmental contamination at a concert hall. Epidemiology and Infection, 129(02), 355-360.
enHealth. (2009). enHealth environmental health officer skills and knowledge matrix. Canberra Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/ohp-enhealth-using-matrix.htm
Faddar, J., Vanhoof, J. De Maeyer, S. (2018). School self-evaluation: self-perception or self-deception? The impact of motivation and socially desirable responding on self-evaluation results. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29, 660-678.
FAO. 3 Developments in Food Safety and Quality Systems (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4743e/y4743e05.htm
FAO. Risk-Based Food Inspection. (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/agns/pdf/factsheets/FoodInspection.pdf
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., Creswell, J. W. 2013. Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs—Principles and Practices. Health Services Research 48:6, Part II, 2134-2156.
Fischer, H. (2010). A history of the central limit theorem: from classical to modern probability theory, Springer Science & Business Media.
Page | 232
Food Law Code of Practice (2017). Food Standards Agency. Retrieved 26 January 2021, from https://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/food-and-feed-codes-of-practiceau
Flower, J. 1999. In the mush. Physician Executive. 25, 64–66.
Food.gov.uk. (2016). 4.8 Authorised officers | Food Standards Agency. Food.gov.uk. Retrieved 5 October 2016, from https://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/codes-of-practice/food-law-code-of-practice-2015/4-8-authorised-officers
Food Standards Agency (FSA). (2020). Food safety inspections and enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/food-safety-inspections-and-enforcement
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2015). Food Standards Code. Retrieved 29 December 2016, from www.foodstandards.gov.au
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Franco, L. M., Bennett, S., Kanfer, R. 2002. Health sector reform and public sector health worker motivation: a conceptual framework. Social Science & Medicine. 54, 1255–1266.
FSIS. The Evolution of Risk-Based Inspection. (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/5e3cde72-c057-4c2b-a4e2-25cd39a1c37b/Evolution_of_RBI_022007.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=9e88cd5c-8359-47cc-bdbb-e393d7cd100e
Freund, R.J., Wilson, W.J., Sa, P. 2006. Regression Analysis (2nd edition). Academic Press, USA.
Fischer, H. (2010). A history of the central limit theorem: from classical to modern probability theory. Springer Science & Business Media.
Galaviz Arredondo, K. I. (2014). Physical Activity Promotion in Mexican Healthcare Settings: From Knowledge to Action (Doctoral dissertation).
Casella, G., & Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical inference (Vol. 2): Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA.
General Authority of Statistics (2018). Population by Gender, Age Groups and Nationality (Saudi/Non-Saudi). Retrieved from https://www.stats.gov.sa/en/5680
Chorna, T., Yanushkevych, D., & Afanasieva, V. (2018). Modern Aspects of Safety Assessment of Foodstuff. Traektoriâ Nauki= Path of Science, 4(4).
Cieh.org.uk. (2021). What is environmental health? How do I become an EHP? Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH). Retrieved 2 February 2021, from https://www.cieh.org/what-is-environmental-health/how-do-i-become-an-ehp/
Gibson, B., & Hua, Z. (2016). Interviews. In Research methods in intercultural communication: A practical guide (pp. 187-195). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Page | 233
Gould, D., Kraa, E., Dalton, C. B., Givney, R., Gregory, J., Stafford, R. J., & Kirk, M. D. (2004). Foodborne disease outbreaks in Australia, 1995 to 2000. Communicable diseases intelligence quarterly report, 28(2), 211.
Government of Canada. (2016, July 5). Yearly food-borne illness estimates for Canada. Retrieved June 21, 2020, from https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/food-borne-illness-canada/yearly-food-borne-illness-estimates-canada.html
Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B. M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29-34. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002
Green, R. & Kane, K. (2014). The effective enforcement of HACCP based food safety management systems in the UK. Food Control, 37, 257-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.016
Griffiths, S., Jewell, T., & Donnelly, P. (2005). Public health in practice: the three domains of public health. Public health, 119(10), 907-913. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350605000570?casa_token=M_zI3jsSDAEAAAAA:pJxJTelGZpjVP35VFR1Dbk7FMGqDCCUEnVB5NxsOh-iy_Mb1Hv06HoVXhzWMu-BM4L6eYKo
Grover, A. K., Chopra, S., & Mosher, G. A. (2016). Food safety modernization act: A quality management approach to identify and prioritize factors affecting adoption of preventive controls among small food facilities. Food Control, 66, 241-249.
Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., Creswell, J. W. 2015. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Results in Health Science Mixed Methods Research Through Joint Displays. Ann Fam Med 13, 554-561.
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417-1432.
Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education International.
Hallett, D. R., Guerin, M., Thomson, S., Pham, M., Duncan, A., Johnston, W., & Blay-Palmer, D. A. (2014, SEPTEMBER 22). Knowledge Translation and Transfer (KTT) Success Stories: KTT through Innovation and Collaboration. Retrieved from Researchers - Build Your Plan
Halton, C., Powell, F., & Scanlon, M. (2015). Continuing professional development in social work. Policy Press Strategies. Food control, 17(1), 42-51.
Hammig, B. (2003). Assessing the Risk of Food-Borne Illness through Web-Based Food Inspection Reporting. American Journal of Health Education, 34(3), 169-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2003.10603550
Page | 234
Hammonds, T. M. (2004). It is time to designate a single food safety agency. Food & Drug LJ, 59, 427.
Ham-Baloyi, W. T., & Jordan, P. (2016). Systematic review as a research method in post-graduate nursing education. Health SA Gesondheid, 21, 120-128. Retrieved from https://www.ajol.info/index.php/hsa/article/view/140835/130570
Hariyati, R. T. S., & Safril, S. (2018). The relationship between nurses’ job satisfaction and continuing professional development. Enfermeria clinica, 28, 144-148.
Harkness, J., Pennell, B. E., & Schoua‐Glusberg, A. (2004). Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, 546, 453-473.
Harvey, G., & Kitson, A. (2015). PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implementation science, 11(1), 33. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=PARIHS+revisited%3A+from+heuristic+to+integrated+framework+for+the+successful+implementation+of+knowledge+into+practice&btnG=
Henson, S., & Caswell, J. (1999). Food safety regulation: an overview of contemporary issues. Food policy, 24(6), 589-603
Henson, S., & Traill, B. (1993). The demand for food safety: Market imperfections and the role of government. Food Policy, 18(2), 152-162.
Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J., & Badia, X. (1998). A model of equivalence in the
cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: The Universalist approach. Quality of Life Research, 7, 323-335. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024985930536
Hertzog, M. A. (2008). Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 31(2), 180-191.
Hester, S., & Rossiter, A. (2016, February). Introducing compliance-based inspection protocols to Australia’s biosecurity system. In 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia (No. 235329). Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
Hill, R. (1998). What sample size is ‘enough’ in internet survey research? Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 6(3-4).
Hobbs, J. E., Fearne, A., & Spriggs, J. (2002). Incentive structures for food safety and quality assurance: an international comparison. Food control, 13(2), 77-81.
Hoag, M. A., Porter, C., Uppala, P. P., & Dyjack, D. T. (2007). A risk-Based Food Inspection Program. Journal of Environmental Health.
Holland, D., & Mahmoudzadeh, N. (2020). Foodborne disease estimates for the United Kingdom in 2018. Food Standards
Page | 235
Agency. https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/foodborne-disease-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom-in-2018.pdf
Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. London, England: Blackwell Science.
Houghton, J. R., Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J., Van Kleef, E., Chryssochoidis, G., Kehagia, O., & Strada, A. (2008). The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities. Food Policy, 33(1), 13-26.
Hussein, A. (2009). The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work, 4(1). Retrieved from http://journal.uia.no/index.php/JCSW/article/view/212/0
Hutter, B. M., & Amodu, T. (2009). Risk regulation and compliance: Food safety in the UK. London School of Economics and Political Science.
Hutter, B. M., & Amodu, T. (2008). Risk regulation and compliance: Food safety in the UK. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.
Hopper, M., & Boutrif, E. (2007). Strengthening National Food Control Systems: A Quick Guide to Assess Capacity Building Needs: Food & Agriculture Org.
Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks? Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 185-195.
International Monetary Fund (2018). Economic Prospects and Policy. Challenges for the GCC Countries. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/SAU
Jacob, S. A., & Furguson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting
interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1-10.
Jaffee, Steven, et al (2018). The Safe Food Imperative : Accelerating Progress in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, World Bank Publications, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=5624967.
Jahan, S. (2012). Epidemiology of Foodborne Illness. In B. Valdez (Ed.), Scientific, Health and Social Aspects of the Food Industry. InTech. Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/books/scientific-health-and-social-aspects-of-the-food-industry/epidemiology-of-foodborne-illness.
Johnson, A.C., Almanza, B.A., Nelson, D.C. 2014. Factors that influence whether health inspectors write down violations on inspection reports. Food Protection Trends 34, No. 4, p.226-236.
Johnston, L. M., Wiedmann, M., Orta‐Ramirez, A., Oliver, H. F., Nightingale, K. K., Moore, C. M., & Jaykus, L. A. (2014). Identification of core competencies for an undergraduate food safety
Page | 236
curriculum using a modified Delphi approach. Journal of Food Science Education, 13(1), 12-21.
Johnson, R. (2012). The federal food safety system: a primer. Congressional Research Service.
Jones, T. F., Pavlin, B. I., LaFleur, B. J., Ingram, L. A., & Schaffner, W. (2004). Restaurant inspection scores and foodborne disease. Emerg Infect Dis, 10(4), 688-692.
Kerr, J., Slocum, J.W. (1987). Managing Corporate Culture Through Reward Systems. Academy of Management Executive, 1(2), 99-108.
Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Research on Nursing Health, 40(1), 23-42. doi:10.1002/nur.21768
Kirk, M., Glass, K., Ford, L., Brown, K., & Hall, G. (2014). Foodborne illness in Australia: Annual incidence circa 2010. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health.https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/E829FA59A59677C0CA257D6A007D2C97/$File/Foodborne-Illness-Australia-circa-2010.pdf
Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk‐based, precaution‐based, and discourse‐based strategies. Risk analysis, 22(6), 1071-1094.
Koutsoumanis, K. P., & Aspridou, Z. (2016). Moving towards a risk-based food safety management. Current Opinion in Food Science, 12, 36-41.
Kotsanopoulos, K. V., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2017). The role of auditing, food safety, and food quality standards in the food industry: A review. Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 16(5), 760-775.
Kruger, J., Dunning, D. 1999. Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. J of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 1121–1134.
Krueger, R. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Labuza, T. P., & Baisier, W. (1992). The role of the Federal Government in food safety. Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition, 31(3), 165-176.
Lammerding, A. M., & Fazil, A. (2000). Hazard identification and exposure assessment for microbial food safety risk assessment. International journal of food microbiology, 58(3), 147-157.
Larsen, R. J. and M. L. Marx (2005). An introduction to mathematical statistics, Prentice Hall.
Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semi structured interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35 (4), 665-668.
Page | 237
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & quantity, 43(2), 265-275.
Loader, R., & Hobbs, J. E. (1999). Strategic responses to food safety legislation. Food policy, 24(6), 685-706.
Mabe, P.A., West, S.G. (1982). Validity of Self-Evaluation of Ability: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 280-296
Maldonado-Simán, E., Martínez-Hernández, P.A., Zaragoza-Ramírez, J.L., Rodríguez-de Lara, R. 2019. Profile of inspectors and protocols applied to imported food in inspections stations. J. of Food Safety 39, e12619.
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358, 483–488.
Manning, L., & Soon, J. M. (2013). Mechanisms for assessing food safety risk. British Food Journal, 115(3), 460-484.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13, 522–525.
Martinez, M. G., Fearne, A., Caswell, J. A., & Henson, S. (2007). Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance: Opportunities for public–private partnerships. Food Policy, 32(3), 299-314.
Marvin, H. J. P., Kleter, G. A., Frewer, L. J., Cope, S., Wentholt, M. T. A., & Rowe, G. (2009). A working procedure for identifying emerging food safety issues at an early stage: Implications for European and international risk management practices. Food control, 20(4), 345-356.
Mascini, P., & Wijk, E. V. (2009). Responsive regulation at the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority: an empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory. Regulation & Governance, 3(1), 27-47.
Mattson, C. L., Schieber, L., Scholl, L., Rudd, R. A., Seth, P., Xu, L., ... & Paulozzi, L. J. (2017). Annual surveillance report of drug-related risks and outcomes--United States, 2017. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/47832
Michaels, B., Keller, C., Blevins, M., Paoli, G., Ruthman, T., Todd, E., & Griffith, C. J. (2004). Prevention of food worker transmission of foodborne pathogens: risk assessment and evaluation of effective hygiene intervention strategies. Food Service Technology, 4(1), 31-49.
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage Publications
Ministry of Health. (2002). Food Poisoning Accidents during the years 1421-1422. (Annual Report.). Riyadh (KSA): Food Poisoning Department, Ministry of Health.
Page | 238
Ministry of Health (2018). Annual Report on Foodborne Disease Outbreaks For the year 2018. Public Health Agency. Retrieved from https://www.moh.gov.sa/Ministry/MediaCenter/Publications/Documents/2014-2018.pdf
Munap, R., Badrillah, M. I. M., & Rahman, B. A. (2013). Organizational rewards system and employees’ satisfaction at Telekom Malaysia Berhad. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(3), 281-281
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.
Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In Denizin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007). Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia, updated (2018
National Food Control Systems: Components and Operation. (2016). Fao.org. Retrieved 10 May 2016, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x7354e/X7354e07.htm
Neal, J.A., Dawson, M., Madera, J.M., 2011. Identifying food safety concerns when communication barriers exist. Journal of Food Sci. Education. 10 (4), 36–44.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nelson, B. (2000). Are performance appraisals obsolete?. Compensation & Benefits Review, 32(3), 39-42.
Newell, D.G., Koopmans, M., Verhoef, L., Duizer, E., Aidara-Kane, A., Sprong, H. & Kruse, H. (2010a). Food-borne diseases - the challenges of 20 years ago still persist while new ones continue to emerge. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 139 Suppl 1, S3–15. From http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.01.021
Newbold, K. B., McKeary, M., Hart, R., & Hall, R. (2008). Restaurant inspection frequency and food safety compliance. Journal of Environmental Health, 71(4), 56-61.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health sciences education, 15(5), 625-632.
Page | 239
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-13. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847
Oltmann, S. M. (2016). Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts. Information Science Faculty Publications, 32.
Ong, T.S., Teh, B.H. (2012). Reward system and performance within Malaysian manufacturing companies. World Applied Sciences Journal, 19, 1009-1017.
Ongkunaruk, P., & Kessuvan, A. (2013, July). A study of large-scale food services best practices in Thailand: a case study of HORECAs. In Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), 2013 10th International Conference on (pp. 831-836). IEEE.
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”. Administrative issues journal: connecting education, practice, and research, 4(2), 7.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544.
Pearce, G., Sidhu, N., Cavadino, A., Shrivathsa, A., Seglenieks, R. Gender effects in anaesthesia training in Australia and New Zealand. (2020). British J of Anaesthesia, 124(3), e70-e76.
Pearson, D. (1976). The chemical analysis of foods (No. Ed. 7). Longman Group Ltd.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003). Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 57(7), 527-529. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Evidence%2C+hierarchies%2C+and+typologies%3A+horses+for+courses&btnG=
Pham, M.T., Jones, A. Q., Sargeant, J. M., Marshall, B. J., Dewey, C. E. 2010. A qualitative exploration of the perceptions and information needs of public health inspectors responsible for food safety. BMC Public Health 10, 345.
Pham, M. (2010). A mixed-method approach to investigate Ontario public health inspectors' food safety perceptions and information needs. In Masters Abstracts International (Vol. 48, No. 05).
Phillips, M. L., Elledge, B. L., Basara, H. G., Lynch, R. A., & Boatright, D. T. (2006). Recurrent critical violations of the food code in retail food service establishments. Journal of Environmental Health, 68(10), 24.
Phillips, J., & French, M. (1998). Adulteration and food law, 1899–1939.Twentieth Century British History, 9(3), 350-369
Page | 240
Pole, K. (2007). Mixed method designs: A review of strategies for blending quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(4), 35-38.
Powell, D. A., Erdozain, S., Dodd, C., Costa, R., Morley, K., & Chapman, B. J. (2013). Audits and inspections are never enough: a critique to enhance food safety. Food Control, 30(2), 686-691.
Prakashbabu, B. C., Marshall, L. R., Crotta, M., Gilbert, W., Johnson, J. C., Alban, L., & Guitian, J. (2018). Risk-based inspection as a cost-effective strategy to reduce human exposure to cysticerci of Taenia saginata in low-prevalence settings. Parasites & vectors, 11(1), 1-11.
Press, A. (2013). Motarjemi, Y. In Encyclopedia of Food Safety. Motarjemi, Y.
Queensland Government. (2019, July 26). Foodborne disease outbreaks. Retrieved June 21, 2020, from https://www.health.qld.gov.au/clinical-practice/guidelines-procedures/diseases-infection/diseases/foodborne/outbreaks
Rajić, A., Young, I., & McEwen, S. A. (2013). Improving the utilization of research knowledge in agri-food public health: a mixed-method review of knowledge translation and transfer. Foodborne pathogens and disease, 10(5), 397-412.
Raphael, D., & Bryant, T. (2006). The state's role in promoting population health: Public health concerns in Canada, USA, UK, and Sweden. Health policy, 78(1), 39-55.
Read, G. (2014). The Role of Codex in Food Import, Export, Inspection and Certification Systems. International Food Risk Analysis Journal, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58860
Reichenheim, M. E., & Moraes, C. L. (2007). Operationalizing the cross-cultural adaptation of epidemiological measurement instruments. Revista de Saúde Pública, 41, 665-673. doi:10.1590/s0034-89102006005000035
Rome Declaration on World Food Security, in FAO, Report of the World Food Summit, Rome 13 to 17November 1996, Part I, Appendix (FAO, 1996); also available at <http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm>.
Ropkins, K., & Beck, A. J. (2000). Evaluation of worldwide approaches to the use of HACCP to control food safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 11(1), 10-21.
Sareen, S. (2014, June). Food Control Systems and Role of GMP/HACCP. Retrieved from http://foodsafetyasiapacific.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2.-FC-Systems-and-GMP-HACCP.pdf
Rycroft-Malone, J., & Bucknall, T. (Eds.). (2010). Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: linking evidence to action. John Wiley & Sons.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Models+and+Frameworks+for+Implementing+Evidence-Based+Practice&btnG=
Page | 241
Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. S., & Cook, S. W. (1976). Research methods in social relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sareen, S. (2014). Introduction to Risk-based Food Inspection, Workshop on Improved Food Inspection Capacity Building Based on Risk Analysis, Seoul, Korea, May 21-23 2014. Retrieved from http://mddb.apec.org/Documents/2014/SCSC/WKSP/14_scsc_wksp_004.pdf
Saudi Vision 2030. (n.d.). National Transformation plan. Retrieved from https://vision2030.gov.sa/en/programs/NTP
Schulze, S., Steyn, T. 2003. Educators’ motivation: differences related to gender, age and experience. Acta Academica 35, 138-160.
Seed, B., Lang, T., Caraher, M., & Ostry, A. (2013). Integrating food security into public health and provincial government departments in British Columbia, Canada. Agriculture and human values, 30(3), 457-470.
Seiver, O. H., & Hatfield, T. H. (2000). Grading systems for retail food facilities: a risk-based analysis. Journal of Environmental Health, 63(3), 22.
Simons, D. J. 2013. Unskilled and optimistic: Overconfident predictions despite calibrated knowledge of relative skill. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20, 601-607.
Smith, J., Ross, K., & Whiley, H. (2016). Australian food safety policy changes from a ‘command and control’ to an ‘outcomes-based’ approach: Reflection on the effectiveness of its implementation. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(12), 1218
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: A clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 268-274.
Smith, J. (2007). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods: Sage. Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, A. D. (2004). Translation and validation of study instruments for cross cultural research. Gastroenterology, 126, S124eS128
Squires, A. (2009). Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative
research: a research review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 277-287. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.006
Stewart, K., & Gostin, L. O. (2011). Food and Drug Administration regulation of food safety. JAMA, 306(1), 88-89.
Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., & Graham, I.D. (2009). Defining knowledge translation. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 181(3-4), 165-168.
Page | 242
Straus, S., Tetroe, J., & Graham, I. D. (2013). Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Sullivan, G. M. and A. R. Artino Jr (2013). "Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales." Journal of graduate medical education 5(4): 541
Sullivan, K. J., & Cen, S. Y. (2011). Model of disablement and recovery: knowledge translation in rehabilitation research and practice. Physical Therapy, 91(12), 1892-1904.
Syed, J., Ali, F., & Hennekam, S. (2018). Gender equality in employment in Saudi Arabia: a relational perspective. Career Development International, 23(2), 163-177.
Tanner, J., & Hale, C. (2002). The workshop as an effective method of dissemination: the importance of the needs of the individual. Journal of nursing management, 10(1), 47-54.
Tabachnick, B. G., et al. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, Pearson Boston, MA.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage.
Teratanavat, R., & Hooker, N. H. (2004). Understanding the characteristics of US meat and poultry recalls: 1994–2002. Food Control, 15(5), 359-367
Tetroe, J. M., Graham, I. D., Foy, R., Robinson, N., Eccles, M. P., Wensing, M., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2008). Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Quarterly, 186(55), 125-155.
Todd, E. C. (2017). Foodborne disease and food control in the Gulf States. Food Control, 73, 341-366. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126945/
The World Bank (2018). Food-borne Illnesses Cost US$ 110 Billion Per Year in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/23/food-borne-illnesses-cost-us-110-billion-per-year-in-low-and-middle-income-countries
Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23-41. doi:10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435
Todd, E. C., Greig, J. D., Bartleson, C. A., & Michaels, B. S. (2007). Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of food borne disease. Part 3. Factors contributing to outbreaks and description of outbreak categories. Journal of Food Protection, 70(9), 2199-2217.
Tonsor, G. T., Schroeder, T. C., Pennings, J. M., & Mintert, J. (2009). Consumer valuations of beef steak food safety enhancement in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the United States. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 57(3), 395-416.
Page | 243
Travers, M. (2013). Qualitative Interviewing Methods. In M. Walter, Social Research Methods (3rd ed., pp. 227-236). South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.
Tuominen, P., Hielm, S., Aarnisalo, K., Raaska, L., & Maijala, R. (2003). Trapping the food safety performance of a small or medium-sized food company using a risk-based model. The HYGRAM® system. Food Control, 14(8), 573-578.
Turnbull, C., Grimmer-Somers, K., Kumar, S., May, E., Law, D., & Ashworth, E. (2009). Allied, scientific and complementary health professionals: a new model for Australian allied health. Australian Health Review, 33(1), 27-37.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Data Booket. ST/ESA/SER.A/424.
United States Food and Drug Administration - Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (USFDA-CFSAN), 2007: List of Terms: H. Available at: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/a2zh.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm187947.htm#parta5-1
US Food and Drug Administration. (2018). FDA report on the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in fast food and full service restaurants, 2013‐2014. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=FDA+REPORT+ON+THE+OCCURRENCE+OF+FOODBORNE+ILLNESS+RISK+FACTORS+IN+FAST+FOOD+AND+FULLSERVICE+RESTAURANTS%2C+2013-2014&btnG=
Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S., & Young, M. (2020). The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine, 95(7), 989-994. Retrieved from https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/wk/acm/2019/00000095/00000007/art00021
Varzakas, T. H., Tsigarida, E. T., Apostolopoulos, C., Kalogridou-Vassiliadou, D., & Jukes, D. J. (2006). The role of the Hellenic Food Safety Authority in Greece—Implementation strategies. Food control, 17(12), 957-965.
Wallace, R.B., Oria, M. (eds). 2010. Enhancing food safety: The role of the Food and Drug Administration. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Walter, M. (2013). Quantitative methods and the power of the numbers. Social research methods (3rd ed., pp. 119-125). South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.
Ward, V. L., House, A. O., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action. BMC Health Services Research, 9(1), 12.
Page | 244
Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, 5(3), 567.
Weisberg, H. F., Krosnick, J. A., Bowen, B. D., & Weisberg, H. F. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Whitehead, M., & Dahlgren, G. (1991). What can be done about inequalities in health?. Lancet, 338(8774), 1059-1063.
World Health Organization. 2003. Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy; World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organization (2016). Global burden of foodborne diseases. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/foodborne-diseases/ferg/en/
Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J., & Aung, M. (2004). Consumer attitudes, knowledge and behaviour: a review of food safety issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(2), 56-66.
Wolfe, D. M. (2012). Knowledge translation and exchange in the Canadian microbial food safety system: A quantitative assessment of researcher awareness, attitude, and activities with government policymakers. Food Policy, 37(6), 589-599.
World Bank: Labor force participation rate - Saudi Arabia. (2020, June 21). Retrieved from https:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?locations=SA
Yost, J., Dobbins, M., Traynor, R., DeCorby, K., Workentine, S., & Greco, L. (2014). Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making. BMC public health, 14(1), 1.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2014). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Yapp, C., & Fairman, R. (2006). Factors affecting food safety compliance within small and medium-sized enterprises: implications for regulatory and enforcement strategies. Food control, 17(1), 42-51.
Yi, E. (2018). Themes don't just emerge-coding the qualitative data. Data Science. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@projectux/themes-dont-just-emerge-coding-the-qualitative-data-95aff874fdce
Page | 245
Appendices
Appendix A Ethical Approval- Queensland University of Technology
Note about participants confidentiality: All participants in this study were given pseudonyms except for the Food Safety Diploma Coordinator who agreed to mention his name and consent form was obtained.
Page | 246
Appendix B Data Collection Approval- Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Saudi Arabia
Page | 247
Appendix C Data Collection Approval – Saudi Arabia Cultural
Mission, Australia
Page | 248
Appendix D Data Collection Confirmation – Environmental Health Department, Riyadh Main Municipality, Saudi Arabia
Page | 249
Appendix E Course Coordinator Interview Approval, Technical and Vocational Training Corporation is a training institute, Saudi Arabia
Page | 250
Appendix F Participants Invitation Message - English
Page | 251
Appendix G Participants Invitation – Arabic
Page | 252
Appendix H Participants Information Sheet – Arabic
Page | 253
Appendix I Interview Document - Public Health Inspectors (PHIs)
Interview information
Date: Time: Location:
Interviewee: Gender: Position:
Prior to interview (expected duration 5-10 minutes)
About the study
I’d like to thank you once again for being willing to participate in the interview aspect of my PhD
research. As I have mentioned to you before, my study seeks to investigate the knowledge and skills
required of PHIs in Saudi Arabia for continuing the change in practices towards conducting of risk-
based (modern) inspection at restaurants. The aim of this study is to enhance the existing food safety
inspection practices and reducing foodborne illnesses. The study will also contribute to achieving one
of the Ministry of Municipal’s objectives at the Saudi Vision 2030 (Objective no. 7 which requires the
Ministry to provide a healthy local urban environment and decrease the foodborne outbreaks).
I would also like to inform you that the outcome of this interview will be used in developing a survey
questionnaire for the PHIs in Riyadh.
Do you have any questions about the study?
Approvals
This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance from the Human Research Ethics
Committee at Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Also, the study has obtained an
approval from the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs. Participation in the interview is completely
voluntary and you may choose to withdraw from completing the interview at any time. All data will
remain confidential and anonymous. Any reported results will not include information that would
allow identification of participants.
About the interview
Our interview today will be audio recorded and will last for about one hour. I will ask you questions
about your background, your experiences with food safety inspection with focusing on restaurants,
professional development, changes and challenges in performing your duties and future
considerations with regards to food safety inspection.
Page | 254
During any stage of the interview you have the right to not answer any question if you do not
wish to, without any explanation. In addition, you can withdraw from the study after the
interview without explaining why. Consent form
I. If you are still happy to take part in this study, could you please read and
sign the consent form?
II. Before we begin the interview, do you have any questions? [Discuss
questions]
If there are any questions arise at any point in this interview, feel free to ask them at any
time. I would be more than happy to answer your questions.
Start audio recording.
Start Interview (expected duration 45-60 minutes)
Introductory Questions (expected duration 5 minutes)
1. Briefly, would you please summarize your work history and education?
(Props: qualification, years of experience, duties, achievements, training courses,
differences if previously worked in other departments)
2. Do you like what you do?
Food safety inspection (expected duration 10 -15 minutes)
In terms of the food safety inspection,
3. In terms of the food safety inspection, could you please describe a typical inspection visit
to restaurant? (Props: from office to the inspection site, preparation, proper equipment,
inspection official document and reporting)
Followed up by:
a. Are there any specific criteria you follow to determine what restaurant you are
going to inspect? If yes, what are they?
b. Are there any specific criteria you follow to determine the inspection frequency?
If yes, what are they?
c. What do you generally check during restaurant inspection visit?
d. What assessments you do? What questions do you ask?
e. What are the most important issues or points that you focus on during the
inspection?
f. Do you think all the PHIs in Riyadh do the same? Why?
Page | 255
4. How do you communicate with food handlers who don’t speak Arabic?
(Props: provide advices, English language, difficulties)
a. Could you please give me an example of a time when you were unable to successfully communicate? How did you handle that?
5. To what extent is the food safety responsibility is shared between the Inspector and
operator/handlers/owners?
(Props: PHIs’ responsibilities, food handler and operator’s and owner’s responsibilities,
cooperation, compliance)
6. Do you know the Hazards and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system? If yes,
Followed up by:
a. How did you know about it? Do you utilize it?
b. If the restaurant has a HACCP plan, do you check it? If no, why?
7. What do most PHIs think about the current inspection approach? Followed up by:
a. Is that the way you feel too? Why?
b. What do you like? What don’t you like? Why?
Changes and challenges (expected duration 10 -15 minutes)
8. What significant changes in inspection practice have happened in the last five years
which have directly affected food safety?
(Props: changes in legislation, inspection approach, role of the PHIs)
a. How successfully do you think you have implemented these changes?
a. Was there any resistance from anyone (e.g., PHIs, EHMs, business owner)? What
happened? How did you deal with it?
b. What is the most significant change? Why?
9. What challenges have you faced in restaurant inspection during the last five years?
(Props: inspecting food from different culture e.g., sushi, compliance, communication,
food handlers, business owners)
a. Which one frustrates you the most?
b. What do you usually do about it?
10. To what extent does existing food legislation (food law, regulations, standards) support
or hinder food inspection? Why?
11. What are the most significant food safety issues related to restaurant nowadays? (Props:
issues that cause foodborne outbreak)
Followed up by:
a. Why?
Page | 256
b. What do you usually do about it?
12. In your opinion, how could the current food inspection approach at restaurant be
improved? (Props: practices, proper equipment, official document and reporting)
13. If we want to change and develop the current food inspection practices, what barriers
do you believe exist that prevent this development?
Education and professional development (expected duration 10-15 minutes)
In regard to the education and professional development aspects:
14. To what extent do you believe that the curriculum of the educational institute you’ve
graduated from help you in your working life as PHI?
(Props: knowledge, skills, practical, risk assessment and management, communication
skills, critical thinking, food law, regulations, research methods)
a. What subjects have been of most help in doing your job?
b. Do you believe the qualification curriculum needs improvements? Why? What
do you think is needed? What subjects could be added to the course?
15. In your current work, does the department keep you up to date with recent
developments relating to food safety inspection? If yes,
Followed up by:
a. How?
(Props: opportunities for continuous professional development, training
programs content, hazards analyses, risk assessment and management,
communication skills)
16. What training courses are not included in the program that you believe you and your
colleagues may need?
17. Are there any obstacles that could hinder the professional development of you or your
colleagues? If yes, what are they?
The future and the risk-based inspection (expected duration 10-15 minutes)
18. In the next 5 to 10 years, what do you consider the greatest threats for the PHIs
workforce? Why?
(Note: the interviewee will now be given oral information about the risk-based inspection)
then, will be asked the following questions:
19. What is your opinion about the risk-based approach? Why?
Page | 257
20. Do you think that you and your colleagues will be confident in changing food inspection
practice toward the risk-based approach?
21. What do you think that you and your colleagues need to change practice toward the
risk-based approach?
(Props: skills, knowledge, training, equipment and resources)
22. What changes need to be made in order to implement the risk-based approach?
(Props: administration, equipment, training, technology, legislation)
23. What barriers do you believe will prevent the implementation of the risk-based
approach?
(Props: legislation, training, changing in inspection practice, using technology)
Concluding
24. Do you have any other thoughts or ideas you’d like to add?
Thanking the interviewee for the participation
The end
Page | 258
Appendix J Interview Document – Environmental Health Manager (EHMs)
Interview information
Date: Time: Location:
Interviewee: Gender: Position:
Prior to interview (expected duration 5-10 minutes)
About the study
I’d like to thank you once again for being willing to participate in the interview aspect of my PhD
research. As I have mentioned to you before, my study seeks to investigate the knowledge and skills
required of Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) in Saudi Arabia for continuing the change in practices
towards conducting of risk-based (modern) inspection at restaurants. The aim of this study is to
enhance the existing food safety inspection practices. The study will also contribute to achieving one
of the Ministry of Municipal’s objectives at the Saudi Vision 2030 (Objective no. 7 which requires the
Ministry to provide a healthy local urban environment and decrease the foodborne outbreaks).
I would also like to inform you that the outcome of this interview will be used in developing a survey
questionnaire for the PHIs in Riyadh.
Do you have any questions about the study?
Approvals
This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance from the Human Research Ethics
Committee at Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Also, the study has obtained an
approval from the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs. Participation in the interview is completely
voluntary and you may choose to withdraw from completing the interview at any time. All data will
remain confidential and anonymous. Any reported results will not include information that would
allow identification of participants.
About the interview
Our interview today will be audio recorded and should last 45-60 minutes. I will ask you questions
about your background, experiences and your expectations toward the performance of the PHIs on
the food safety inspection. The interview will also focus on the professional development, changes
and challenges that the PHIs face in performing their duties.
Page | 259
During any stage of the interview you have the right to not answer any question if you do not wish to,
without any explanation. In addition, you can withdraw from the study after the interview without
explaining why.
Consent form
I. If you are still happy to take part in this study, could you please read and
sign the consent form?
II. Before we begin the interview, do you have any questions? [Discuss
questions]
If there are any questions arise at any point in this interview, feel free to ask them at any
time. I would be more than happy to answer your questions.
Start audio recording
Start Interview (expected duration 40-60 minutes)
Introductory Questions (expected duration 5 minutes)
1. Briefly, would you please summarize your work history and education?
a. (Props: qualification, years of experience, duties, achievements, training courses,
differences if previously worked in other departments)
Food safety inspection (expected duration 10 -15 minutes)
2. In terms of the food safety inspection, what do you expect PHIs to do when conducting an
inspection visit to a restaurant?
(Props: from office to the inspection site, preparation, proper equipment, inspection,
official document and reporting)
3. Do you believe that all PHIs conduct food safety inspections as you would expect? Why?
4. What are the most significant food safety issues related to the restaurants in the last
decade?
(Props: issues that may cause food poisoning)
Followed up by:
c. Why?
a. What do you think the best way to handle it?
5. What skills do highly competent PHIs have?
6. If you think someone is less competent, what are they lacking? What do you think they
need?
Page | 260
7. What do you think are the most important skills and knowledge that a PHI needs to
effectively conduct a food safety inspection at a restaurant?
8. When judging the performance of PHI, what factors or characteristics most important to
you? Why?
9. What do you think most EHMs in Riyadh think of the current restaurant inspection
approach? Followed up by:
a. Is that the way you feel too?
b. What do you like about the current approach? What don’t you like? Why?
10. In your opinion, how could the current food inspection approach be improved?
a. What areas need improvement? Why? b. Do you believe any barriers exist that may prevent this development?
Changes and challenges (expected duration 10 -15 minutes)
11. What are the significant changes made in your Department in the last decade which have
directly affected the food safety inspection?
(Props: changes in legislation, inspection approach, role of the PHIs)
b. How successfully do you think you have implemented these changes?
c. Was there any resistance from anyone (e.g., PHIs, EHMs, business owner)?
d. What happened? How did you deal with it?
e. What is the most significant change? Why?
12. What challenges have you faced with your PHIs in restaurant inspection during the last
decade?
(Props: PHIs’ inspection practice, inspecting food from different culture e.g., sushi,
compliance, communication, food handlers, business owners)
c. Which one frustrates you the most?
d. What do you usually do about it?
13. To what extent does existing food legislation (food law, regulations, standards) support or
hinder food inspection? Why?
14. What challenges do you think the PHIs are facing today? Why?
Education and professional development (expected duration 5 -10 minutes)
15. During the last decade, have you ever had newly graduated PHIs working in your
department? If yes,
a. To what extent do you believe that they have adequate knowledge and skills to
perform their duties as PHIs?
Page | 261
b. Why? Any identified gaps?
16. Do you keep the PHIs informed about what is going on in their profession? How?
a. Are there any current training course programs for the PHI? If yes,
b. What does it include?
c. How did you determine the PHIs needs?
d. Who designs the training courses? What are they based on?
e. Who is involved in the development of the training course component?
17. Are there any obstacles that could hinder the professional development of PHIs? If yes, what
are they?
The future and the risk-based inspection (expected duration 10 -15 minutes)
18. In the next 5 to 10 years, what do you see as the greatest threats for the PHIs? Why?
(Note: the interviewee will now be given oral information about the risk-based inspection
approach) and will then be asked the following questions:
19. What is your opinion about the risk-based approach? Why?
20. Do you think that the PHIs will be confident in changing their practice toward the risk-based
approach?
21. What do you think is needed for PHIs’ to change their practice and implement the risk-based
approach?
(Props: skills, knowledge, training, equipment and resources, administration, technology)
22. What barriers do you believe will prevent the implementation of the risk-based approach?
Concluding
23. Do you have any other thoughts or ideas you’d like to add?
Thanking the interviewee for the participation
The end
Page | 262
Appendix K Interview Document for the Coordinator of the Food Safety Diploma at the Technical College of Riyadh
Interview information
Date: Time: Location:
Interviewee: Gender: Position:
Prior to interview (expected duration 5-10 minutes)
About the study
I’d like to thank you once again for being willing to participate in the interview aspect of my PhD
research. As I have mentioned to you before, my study seeks to investigate the knowledge and skills
required of Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) in Saudi Arabia for continuing the change in practices
towards conducting of risk-based (modern) inspection at restaurants. The aim of this study is to
enhance the existing food safety inspection practices. The study will also contribute to achieving one
of the Ministry of Municipal’s objectives at the Saudi Vision 2030 (Objective no. 7 which requires the
Ministry to provide a healthy local urban environment and decrease the foodborne outbreaks).
I would also like to inform you that the outcome of this interview will be used in developing a survey
questionnaire for the PHIs in Riyadh.
Do you have any questions about the study?
Approvals
This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance from the Human Research Ethics
Committee at Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Also, the study has obtained an
approval from the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs.
Participation in the interview is completely voluntary and you may choose to withdraw from
completing the interview at any time. All data will remain confidential and anonymous. Any reported
results will not include information that would allow identification of participants.
About the interview
Our interview today will be audio recorded and should last for about one hour. I will first ask you
questions about your background before discussing the current curriculum of the Food Safety Diploma
and the qualification requirements for PHIs. You have the right to not answer any question
without explanation during the interview, and you can withdraw from the study after the
interview without explaining why.
Page | 263
Consent form
III. If you are still happy to take part in this study, could you please read and
sign the consent form?
IV. Before we begin the interview, do you have any questions? [Discuss
questions]
If there are any questions arise at any point in this interview, feel free to ask them at any
time. I would be more than happy to answer your questions.
Start audio recording
Start the Interview (expected duration 45-60 minutes)
Introductory Questions (expected duration 5-10 minutes)
1. Briefly, would you please summarize your work history and education?
(Props: qualification, years of experience, duties, achievements, training courses,
differences if previously worked in other departments)
Food Safety Diploma (expected duration 20 minutes)
2. Why was the qualification requirement of PHIs changed from a secondary diploma
to the current high diploma in 2005?
a. Who proposed the changes?
b. What happened?
c. What is your opinion about these changes?
3. In general, what are the differences between the previous secondary diploma and
the current high diploma?
(Props: admission requirement, staff, curriculums, teaching method)
a. Why was this change undertaken?
b. Has it made a difference?
c. What is your opinion about these changes?
4. What changes have happened to the curriculum?
a. What change has occurred in the subjects?
b. Why were they changed?
c. Have they made a difference?
d. What is your opinion about these changes?
5. What knowledge and skills directly related to food safety inspection do you teach?
Page | 264
(Props: practical, HACCP, risk assessment and management, communication skills,
English language, critical thinking, food law, regulations, research methods)
a. How do you incorporate ‘this’ into the teaching?
b. To what extent do you incorporate ‘this’ into the teaching?
6. Could you please talk to me about the practical placement unit?
a. What are the requirements to pass the unit?
b. How do you assess the knowledge and skills of the trainee during the field
training?
c. What you assess? Who does the assessment?
7. Do you adjust the curriculum? If yes,
a. How often?
b. What mechanisms do you employ for making the adjustments?
E.g., involving of stakeholder feedback (from students, graduates,
professional bodies, employers and other interested parties)
Professional development (expected duration 5 minutes)
8. Do you have any cooperation with the Ministry of Municipal in the provision of
training courses for current PHIs in Saudi Arabia? If yes:
a. What does include?
b. Based on what do you design the training course?
c. Are PHIs involved or the Environmental Health departments involved in the
development of the training course component?
d. How did you determine the needs of current PHIs?
The future (expected duration 20 minutes)
9. Would you like to raise any issue regarding the current curriculum? If yes:
a. What?
b. How could this be improved in the future?
10. Is there any plan to change the curriculum and qualification in the nearest future? If
yes:
a. What are they? Why these changes?
11. Do you think there is a need for any change to the current curriculum for the next 5-
10 years? If yes:
a. What are they? Why these changes?
12. Have you heard about the Saudi Vision 2030? If yes,
Page | 265
a. Dose the vision has any objective related to Food safety Diploma? If yes,
b. What are they? What you are going to do?
(Note: the interviewee will now be given oral information about the risk-based inspection)
then be asked the following questions:
13. What is your opinion about the risk-based approach?
14. What changes to the current curriculum or qualification are needed to implement
the risk-based approach?
15. What skills and knowledge do you think the student may need?
16. What barriers do you believe will prevent the implementation of these changes?
Concluding
17. Do you have any other thoughts or ideas you’d like to add?
Thank the interviewee for their participation
The end
Page | 266
Appendix L Survey Questionnaire – English Language
Page | 267
Food Safety Inspection Knowledge
Note: There is a similarity between Question 1 and 2. Question 1 is about your confidence in your knowledge, while Question 2 is about your confidence in your skills. Both questions allow you to select answer from the list of choices.
1. How confident are you about your current knowledge in the following areas?
1- Very confident| 2- Confident | 3 - Not Sure | 4 – Slightly confident | 5 – Not at all confident
1 2 3 4 5
A Food safety laws and regulations
B Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) guideline for preventing a food safety hazard
C Inspection techniques: observation, inspection, measuring, testing, questioning
D Food sampling techniques for collecting samples for bacterial and chemicals testing
E How to communicate inspection results
F Best practices in sanitation and hygiene
G Food microbiology (e.g., conditions required for growth of potentially harmful microorganisms)
H How pests are controlled
I Scientific research
Page | 268
Food Safety Inspection Skills
2. How confident are you about your current skills in the following areas? (this question allows you to select multiple answers from the list of choices)
1- Not at all confident| 2 - Slightly Confident | 3 - Not Sure | 4 - confident | 5 - very confident
1 2 3 4 5
A Assessing compliance with food safety laws and regulations
B Evaluation of the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system
C Inspection techniques: observing, inspecting, measuring and testing
D Using of inspection devices (e.g., calibrated thermometer in testing food)
E
Food sampling techniques (e.g., aseptic techniques, handling for transportation to a laboratory)
F Assessing compliance with best practices in sanitation and hygiene
G Assessing methods of microorganisms control
H Assessing pest control (e.g., Identifying pests and providing advice on appropriate methods of control).
I Conducting research and collect evidence (e.g., outbreak tracing, preventative strategies)
J
Communication of (e.g., food safety information, inspection results) in a way that food handlers and business operators understand
K Reading in English (e.g., ingredients presented in English language)
L Speaking in English language (e.g., delivering food safety information to food handlers)
Page | 269
Training and professional development
3. Have you received any training about food safety since you started working as a Health Inspector?
o Yes o No (if chosen, it will automatically skip Q3-A to Q4 on the online survey)
A- If yes, was the content helpful for your responsibilities in food safety inspection?
o Yes o No
4. In the last 12 months how many times have you attended training for your professional
development?
1- Never| 2- One time | 3- Two times | 4- More than 2 times | 5 - Not applicable
5. Would you attend a training course even if there is no reward? o Yes o No
6. Do you manage your own professional development? (e.g., training, reading scientific
articles)
o Yes o No if (if chosen, it will automatically skip Q6-A to Q7 on the online survey)
A- If yes, in the last month how many times have you learnt about something new that has contributed to your professional development?
1- Never |2- One time | 3- Two times | 3- More than 2 times | 4- Not applicable
7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
1 - Strongly agree| 2 - agree| 3 – Not sure | 4 - Disagree | 5 - Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5
A Training programmes are usually available for me.
B I will arrange to complete my studies even if my employer does not give me the opportunity.
C My qualification program prepared me well for a real-life Health Inspector job.
Page | 270
8. Are there any barriers that prevent you from attending professional training? o Yes o Sometimes o No if (if chosen, it will automatically skip Q8-A to Q9 on the online survey)
A- If yes or sometimes, what are the potential barriers that prevent you from attending
professional training? Select all that apply. o Not available o Not relevant to what I need o No incentive
9. From the topics listed below, what would you like further training in? (check all that apply)
Topics
A Risk-based (modern) food safety inspection techniques
B Use of inspection devices contained in the Health Inspectors bag
C
Understanding and application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system
D Causes of foodborne outbreaks and illnesses and how to prevent future outbreaks
E Emerging food safety issues
F Foods from different cultures
G Emerging foodborne pathogens
H Understanding best practices regarding sanitation and hygiene
I Sampling tools and techniques
J English language (e.g., oral, written)
K Investigation skills in food safety inspection
Page | 271
10. Which of the following would you consider to be the most effective strategy for disseminating food safety information to health inspectors? (please select Two)
o E-mail newsletter o Website o Social media (e.g., twitter, Facebook) o WhatsApp messenger o Workshop/ Seminar
11. In your opinion, how useful is each of the following resources in your role as a health inspector?
1 - Very useful | 2 - Useful | 3 - Neutral | 4 - Useless | 5 – Very useless| 6 - No opinion
Resources 1 2 3 4 5
A Formal education (general education provided by government)
B Seminars/workshops
C E-mail newsletter
D Web-based database for food safety information and resources
E Regular meetings with inspectors from other inspection agencies (i.e., SFDA, MoC)
Challenges and obstacles 12. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
1 - Strongly agree| 2 - agree| 3 - Undecided | 4 - Disagree | 5 - Strongly disagree | 6 – No opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6
A Whenever I meet food handlers who speak a different language from my own, I find it difficult to communicate food safety information to them
B All Food safety laws and regulations are clear to me
Page | 272
13. How often during food inspections do you come across food from other cultures?
Regularly Occasionally Rarely Never
14. Do you know how to inspect those food from other cultures??
Yes Sometimes No Not applicable
15. How satisfied are you with the following?
1- Very satisfied |2- Satisfied |3- Neither |4- Dissatisfied |5- Very dissatisfied
1 2 3 4 5
A Food safety laws and regulations
B Equipment in Health Inspectors bag
C Field work system (Raqeb)
D The criteria of annual performance report
E Transportation service provided by my department
F Motivation at my workplace
G Support and security provided by the management
H The diploma curriculum for training health inspectors
16. What areas of your job do you find difficult or want to improve? (Select all that apply)
Food safety law regulations Food safety assessments Dealing with food handler and business owner
Page | 273
Demographic information
17. In which age category do you belong?
18 to 29 yrs 30 to 39 yrs 40 to 49 yrs 50 to 59 yrs 60 yrs or older Prefer not to answer
18. What is your gender?
Male Female Prefer not to answer
19. How long have you been employed as public health inspector?
0 to 2 yrs 3 to 5 yrs 6 to 10 yrs 11 to 20 yrs More than 20 yrs Prefer not to answer
20. Are you currently employed as a Health Inspector in Riyadh?
Yes No
21. In which municipality do you work? Select from the list
General Department of Environmental Health Municipality of Olaya Municipality of Batha Municipality of the North Municipality of Areegea Municipality of Arqa Municipality of Aziziyah Municipality of Shmeisi Municipality of Shifa Municipality of Al Rawda Municipality of Namar Municipality of Deraia Prefer not to answer
Page | 274
22. What is the highest degree/level of education you have been awarded?
Middle School Secondary School Secondary diploma in Health Inspection Technical college diploma (Food and Environment technology) Bachelor Postgraduate Other (Please specify)
23. Please provide any additional comments you would like to mention
Thank you so much for taking the time to complete the survey.
Page | 275
Appendix M Survey Questionnaire – Arabic Language
Page | 276
Page | 277
Page | 278
Page | 279
Page | 280
Page | 281
Page | 282
Page | 283
Page | 284
Page | 285
Page | 286
Appendix N Major Themes – Map