A11 RISK PERCEPTION AND KNOWLEDGE OF COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH CELIAC DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Celiac disease (CeD) has been associated with an increased risk of respiratory infections, however, we recently demonstrated that the odds of contracting COVID-19 in patients with CeD is similar to that of the general population. Due to this discrepancy, how patients with CeD perceive their risk may differ from their actual risk. Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the risk perceptions for contracting COVID-19 in patients with CeD and to determine the factors that may influence their perceptions. Methods We distributed a survey throughout 10 countries between March and June 2020 and collected data on demographics, diet, COVID-19 testing, and risk perceptions of COVID-19 in patients with CeD. Participants were recruited through various celiac associations, clinic visits, and social media. Risk perception was assessed by asking individuals whether they believe patients with CeD are at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to the general population. Logistic regression was used to determine the influencing factors associated with COVID-19 risk perception, such as age, sex, adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD), and comorbidities such as cardiac/respiratory conditions and diabetes. Data was presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Results A total of 10,737 participants with CeD completed the survey. From them, 6,019 (56.1%) patients with CeD perceived they were at a higher risk or were unsure if they were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to the non-CeD population. A greater proportion of patients with CeD had high levels of COVID-19 risk perceptions when compared to infections in general (56.1% vs 26.7%; p<0.0001). Consequently, 28.8% reported taking extra COVID-19 precautions as a result of their CeD. Members of celiac associations had lower rates of perceiving an increased risk of COVID-19 when compared to non-members (49.5% vs 57.4%, p<0.0001). Older age (aOR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.9 to 1, p<0.001), male sex (aOR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.94, p=0.001), and strict adherence to a GFD (aOR: 0.89; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97, p=0.007) were associated with a lower perception of COVID-19 risk. Meanwhile, the presence of comorbidities was associated with a higher perception of COVID-19 risk (aOR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.51, p<0.001). Conclusions Overall, a large proportion of patients with CeD, particularly females, those with comorbidities, or those not adhering to a strict GFD, believed they were or were unsure if they were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their condition. As high levels of risk perception may increase an individual’s pandemic-related stress and contribute to negative mental health consequences, healthcare providers should maintain consistent communication with the celiac community and provide them with evidence-based recommendations. Funding Agencies 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".