Availability and Use of Methods To Limit Cross-Contamination of Gluten-Free Foods in Restaurants in a Large Urban Centre in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Dining out has been reported as one of the largest perceived barriers to gluten-free (GF) diet adherence. The main objective of this study was to assess the availability and use of methods to limit cross-contamination (CC) of GF items in restaurants in Winnipeg, Manitoba, a major city within central Canada. Methods: Restaurants were identified through an online search and were categorized based on locality, service type, and ethnic cuisine. Restaurants were contacted by phone, asked if they served GF items and if methods were used to limit gluten CC. Chi-squared (X2) tests were used to test for differences in the proportion of restaurants reporting GF items and using methods to limit CC based on service type, locality, and ethnic cuisine type. Results with a p-value of < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 548 restaurants surveyed, 69% reported offering GF items. 73% of full-service restaurants (FSRs) reported offering GF items, while only 55% of quick-service restaurants (QSRs) reported the same [X2(1, N=548) =13.2, p< 0.001]. There was a significant relationship between restaurant locality and availability of GF menu items, with 41% of chain and 22% of local restaurants reporting offering GF items [X2(1, N=548) = 4.10, p= 0.04]. Availability of GF items was lowest in restaurants serving African cuisine (50% of African restaurants surveyed), and highest in restaurants serving Latin American cuisine (95% of Latin American restaurants surveyed). Overall, 81% of all restaurants offering GF options reported using methods to limit gluten CC. The percentage of restaurants who reported using such methods was higher for QSR (90%) vs. FSRs (79%) [X2(1, N=375) = 4.5, p=0.03)]. Use of these methods was reported by 89% of chain restaurants but only 72% of local restaurants, X2(1, N=375) = 4.86, p=0.03). Although the percentage of restaurants reporting the use of methods to limit CC was relatively high amongst all ethnic restaurants, some differences existed [X2(9, N=375) = 23.5, p=0.05]. Conclusions: Availability GF foods and use of procedures to limit gluten CC vary based on type of service, locality, and cuisine served. This information may be helpful for individuals following a GF diet when making decisions on dining out. Funding Sources: Salary support from The University of Winnipeg and Agriculture and Agri-foods Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».