Consumer research regarding people at higher risk of food poisoning

A qualitative approach was selected to gain deep insight into respondents’ understanding of the vulnerable groups’ definitions. The research was conducted across a series of seven, one hour-long, focus group discussions with members of the public from across Scotland. The focus groups took place between 3rd and the 17th February 2026. Respondents were paid an incentive of £45 to participate in the focus group.

Respondents were drawn from across a range of urban, rural and suburban areas. Areas included Central Scotland, Edinburgh, Glasgow and West Scotland, Perthshire, Aberdeenshire and the North, including one respondent from Orkney.

All research was undertaken in strict accordance with UK GDPR legislation and the
Market Research Society’s Code of Conduct. A copy of the technical appendix can be found in Appendix A of this report.

Using a combination of existing databases, known contacts and “cold” in-street recruiting Progressive’s team of seven experienced qualitative recruiters were responsible for recruiting respondents for all focus groups. Recruitment was conducted using detailed specifications agreed with FSS to ensure that the final sample reflected the target audiences and research objectives (Table 1).

A structured recruitment questionnaire was designed and used to screen respondents against the agreed quotas. The questionnaire incorporated definitions and lists of relevant medications supplied by FSS to enable accurate identification of respondents who were immunocompromised. A copy of the recruitment questionnaire can be found in Appendix B of this report.

In addition, information was collected on any vulnerabilities respondents may have had, as well as behaviours that could influence susceptibility to foodborne illness (Appendix B). While no formal quotas were set on these characteristics, collecting this information provided important contextual insight and ensured a balanced mix of respondents across groups, supporting richer interpretation of the findings.

Ahead of the group discussions, respondents were ‘validated’ to double check that the information provided by each recruiter was accurate. An e-mail was sent to all respondents asking them to complete key validation keys ahead of the discussion. Respondents were reminded to do this to ensure that as many responses as possible were received. The validation e-mail also reminded respondents that the session is recorded and reassured respondents that the session is confidential. It also informed respondents on how they will receive their incentive via Progressive’s incentive sharing partner, Ayda.

Validation responses were checked against the initial responses given by recruiters. Any discrepancies were checked directly with the recruiter. If a respondent was found to be out of specification for the project, then the recruiter would have been asked to re-recruit another respondent that is more relevant. This turned out not to be the case.

Prior to the discussion taking place, e-mails were sent to all respondents reminding them of the session date, time and the link to access the discussion. Respondents were reminded once again that the session is recorded, how to log in and how to claim their incentive following the discussion. Once fieldwork had taken place and the field team had confirmation that respondents turned up and contributed, the respondents were paid via the Ayda platform.

The sample plan was drawn up and agreed with FSS. The sample covered four target audiences: general population aged 50-64, older adults aged 65 years and above, people who were immunocompromised, and carers.

The sample included an even mix of gender and representation from minority ethnic groups. Respondents were grouped by age and socio-economic group (SEG) where possible for groups one to four. SEG was allowed to fall out naturally for groups five to seven. A wide age range of respondents from 33 years old to 79 years old took part in these groups.

The original aim was to recruit five respondents to each group with the aim of achieving a sample of 35 respondents. Some participant drop out occurred across four groups making the final sample size 29.

Focus groups were held online over Teams which enabled respondents from across different geographical areas of Scotland to join. Four of the groups were viewed by an FSS member with observers turning off their cameras and muting their microphones during the course of the discussion. Each group began with a welcome and introductions. Consent for video recording was confirmed, and respondents were reassured about confidentiality, GDPR, and compliance with the MRS Code of Conduct.

Three very experienced executives from Progressive moderated the groups sticking closely to a topic guide that was designed in collaboration with FSS. Different versions of messaging and definitions of vulnerable people were tested to determine which communicated better. The topic guide was formed of six sections which included:

• Introduction where consents were confirmed
• Background to understanding of food poisoning
• Understanding of vulnerable groups and who is considered vulnerable
• Testing of definitions developed by FSS
• Short investigation into sources of information
• Final wrap us session where a reminder of key food safety behaviours was shared with respondents.

A full copy of the topic guide can be found in Appendix C.

Stimulus in the form of a PowerPoint document of showcards was shared with respondents to support the discussions. It comprised the following: 

• One slide to outline types of vulnerable groups
• Two slides that outlined two versions of definitions of vulnerable people defined by category. One version simply outlined category inclusions, the other more detailed version gave an explanation of why inclusions belong
• Two slides that outlined two versions of definitions defined by types of people. One version simply outlined category inclusions, the other more detailed version gave an explanation of why inclusions belong
• Two slides that outlined key food safety behaviours

All of the stimulus carried FSS branding. A full copy of the stimulus can be found in Appendix D.

Each focus group was recorded and a transcription made available by Teams. Moderators also took discussion notes and quotes during the process of moderating groups. Moderators reviewed discussion notes, transcripts and recordings; aligned on key themes via a brainstorm; and constructed a comprehensive summary of each group. Findings were checked against objectives to ensure coverage and coherence. The lead author of the report led the brainstorming session and read across all notes and transcripts of the focus group discussions.

Strengths of the approach taken include the following:

• The qualitative focus group method enabled in depth exploration of respondents’ understanding, perceptions, and language around vulnerable groups and foodborne illness.
• Group discussion facilitated the sharing and comparison of experiences, helping to surface common attitudes, misconceptions, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Testing alternative definitions within the sessions allowed immediate feedback on clarity, tone, and effectiveness.
• Online delivery via Microsoft Teams enabled participation from across Scotland, supporting geographic diversity while remaining time and cost efficient.
• Use of a structured topic guide ensured consistency across groups, while skilled moderation allowed flexibility from different executives to probe emerging themes.

Overall, the research was very effective although a few limitations should be noted:

• Due to the small sample sizes involved and the methods of respondent selection, qualitative research findings do not provide statistically robust data. However, this type of research does facilitate valid and extremely valuable consumer insight and understanding.
• Some participant drop out was experienced in four of the groups leading to a slightly smaller sample that had been proposed.