MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1335 Assessment of Knowledge of Gluten-Free Diet Amongst Food Handlers in Hospitals

2021· article· en· W3208322017 on OpenAlexaff
Felix Zhou, Tyler Mullen, Tasha Kulai, Mohsin Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFood serviceGluten freeFamily medicineTest (biology)Health careGlutenDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Individuals with celiac disease (CD) and other gluten-related disorders require a strict gluten-free diet (GFD). If ever admitted to hospital, they rely on food handlers for provision of safe, uncontaminated gluten-free meals. Previous studies have assessed knowledge of CD and GFD in restaurant chefs, dietitians, and physicians. However, there is no such research on food service personnel in health care institutions such as hospitals. We aimed to assess the basic knowledge of GFD and food preparation practices amongst individuals involved in making meals for patients in hospital. Methods: A questionnaire was developed with 10 demographic items and 35 test items to assess knowledge of GFD including practical workplace scenarios encountered in food preparation. The questionnaire was developed by members of the research team, which included adult and pediatric gastroenterologists and dietitians with expertise in GFD. Further guidance was obtained from chefs, patients with CD and parents of children with CD. A score of 28 out of 35 (80%) was set as a Pass. Subjects were recruited from food handling services of two tertiary care, university-affiliated hospitals and included cooks, utility workers, dietary technicians and supervisors. Results: A total of 72 individuals completed the study, mean age 40.3 ± 1.6 years, 75% female. Only 42 (56.8%) scored a Pass. The average test score was 75.9 ± 13.4% (26.6 out of 35), range 25.7-100%. The supervisors (87.9 ± 11.4%) had significantly higher scores than utility workers (73.0 ± 11.4%, P = 0.01) and cooks (71.7 ± 14.5%; P = 0.01), but similar to scores of dietary technicians (87.1 ± 8.0%, P = 1.0). Cooks had the lowest scores and highest fail rate (80%). There was a significant difference in scores between male and female participants (68.8 vs 77.8%; P = 0.02). Conclusion: There are significant differences in gluten-free diet knowledge between various individuals involved in food preparation in hospitals. While supervisors and dietary technicians play important roles in the selection of gluten-free meals and accordingly have higher levels of formal education in nutrition, cooks and utility workers are at the frontline in meal preparation and these individuals must be adequately educated on GFD. We identified gaps in knowledge of gluten-free diets amongst food handlers, which has a potential of compromising the safety of patients with celiac disease. Targeted interventions to educate these individuals about gluten-free diet are required.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207