MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921817012 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.177

A178 ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF GLUTEN-FREE DIET AMONGST FOOD HANDLERS IN HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS

2019· article· en· W2921817012 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tyler Mullen, Tasha Kulai, Mohsin Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseGluten freeEnvironmental healthFamily medicineHealth carePopulationGlutenInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Celiac disease is a common disorder affecting 1% of the population. Therefore, it would not be uncommon for individuals with celiac disease to be admitted to health care facilities where they do not have direct control over their diet. Availability of safe gluten-free (GF) meals is important as ongoing gluten consumption, often in the form of contamination, is associated with numerous comorbidities and increased mortality. Ensuring that food-handlers are trained and educated about preparing GF foods is critical to diminish this risk. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge of celiac disease and GF diet amongst food handlers working in a healthcare institution. A questionnaire consisting of 40 test items to assess knowledge of celiac disease (n=5) and GF diet (n=35) was developed. This included true/false and multiple-choice questions, many centred on real workplace scenarios. The questionnaire was reviewed for feasibility, readability, and accuracy by practicing gastroenterologists, three dietitians with expertise in GF diet, three adolescents with celiac disease, five adult members of the Canadian Celiac Association, and managers of Nutrition and Food Services. The questionnaire was distributed to food handlers such as cooks and those who prepare trays for patients at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. A score of 80% or more was considered a Pass and evidence of acceptable knowledge in the areas tested. To date, 12 surveys have been collected and analyzed. Data acquisition is ongoing. Participants included 6 cooks, 4 supervisors, and 2 utility workers. Average age was 45.7 years, and 10 (83.3%) were female. All participants had heard of gluten or GF before, and 11 (91.7%) had heard of celiac disease. Overall, 4 of 12 (33.3%) received a failing grade. The average score of those who failed was 69.4% ± 8.5% (57.5%-77.5%) and 90.3% ± 6.5% (80%-100%) for those who passed. The average score on celiac disease questions was 86.6% ± 15.7 and 83.3% ± 12.9% on GF diet questions. Of the cooks, 3 of 6 (50%) received a failing grade with their average score being 77.92% ±12.2% (57.5%-87.5%). All supervisors (n=4) passed with an average score of 96.2% ±3.2% (92.5%-100%). Of the 2 utility workers, 1 failed with the average score being 76.25% ± 5.3% (72.5%-80%). Preliminary results reveal knowledge regarding celiac disease and GF diet amongst food handlers such as cooks who prepare meals for patients at health care institutions seems to be inadequate. This has a potential of increased risk of gluten contamination in meals being served to patients requiring a GF diet, leading to negative health consequences. Knowledge amongst nutrition supervisors seems adequate, but they are not actively involved in food preparation. Greater numbers of survey responses will clarify the evidence. None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207