Characterisation of Studies on Consumers' Home Food Safety Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP): A Scoping...

Home food safety (HFS) is a major contributor to foodborne illness, often originating in domestic settings. Although population-based studies using surveys, questionnaires, and interviews are commonly used to assess consumers' HFS-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP), methodological heterogeneity limits comparability across studies. This scoping review aimed to map studies assessing consumers' HFS-related KAP in high-income countries, describe recurrent methodological and reporting features, and identify areas of variability. Following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and JBI guidance, the literature published between 2000 and 2023 was systematically searched across five scientific databases, as well as governmental and institutional sources for the grey literature. Data extraction and synthesis were guided by an expanded 15-feature framework refined from a previous rapid review. A total of 274 documents were included (247 scientific articles and 27 governmental and institutional reports). Across the included studies, several methodological features showed high consistency, including primary data collection (93%), predominantly cross-sectional designs (91%), the use of closed-ended instruments (71%), quantitative analytical approaches (78%), and voluntary, non-incentivised participation (68%), suggesting the presence of a common descriptive methodological core. At the same time, substantial variability was observed in sample size (62%), study aims (52%), analytical strategies (52%), modes of administration (51%), geographic coverage (47%), thematic scope (44%), and study period (54%). The coexistence of methodological convergence and context-dependent variability poses challenges in terms of evidence synthesis and comparability in HFS-related KAP research. The 15-feature framework developed in this review provides a structured, non-prescriptive tool to support transparent description and comparison of methodological and reporting practices. By pinpointing common approaches and areas of divergence, this review offers a foundation for guiding future HFS-related KAP research and supporting the development of more comparable and policy-relevant evidence.