Facilitators and barriers to adherence to gluten‐free diet among adults with celiac disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease (CD) is a chronic, autoimmune disease that prevents individuals from processing gluten, leading to adverse health effects. People with CD should adhere to a gluten-free diet (GFD); however, adherence rates are well below optimal in adults with CD, ranging between 42% and 91%. To date, limited evidence is available on the nature and magnitude of factors that affect adherence to GFD. The present study aimed to develop a systematic review that critically appraises and synthesises evidence on facilitators and barriers that affect adherence to GFD among adults with CD. METHODS: Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, CINAHL, PsychInfo and Embase) using variant keywords to identify empirical studies meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A coding scheme was developed to extract relevant information from each article. RESULTS: Forty articles were included. Grounded in the bioecological theory of development, we synthesised the facilitators and barriers in the literature into a social ecological model with multiple levels: system, community, organisational, interpersonal and individual. The studies varied by design and level of evidence; only one randomised trial was identified. The most significant facilitators include (% of studies): increased education (22.5%); increased knowledge of a GFD (20%); increased intention/self-regulatory efficacy (17.5%); and coeliac association membership (12.5%). The most significant barriers include: lower knowledge of CD (35%); restaurant/supermarket shopping (30%); poor patient education from practitioner (17.5%); and low intention/motivation to adhere to a GFD (17.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Improving knowledge of a GFD, becoming a member of a coeliac association, and improving practitioners' abilities to educate patients on CD will create opportunities for improved adherence to GFD among adults with CD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".