A193 PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO GLUTEN-FREE FOOD ACCESS ON-CAMPUS EXPERIENCED BY STUDENTS FROM DIFFERENT CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Students with gluten-related disorders (GRD), a spectrum of conditions including celiac disease (CeD) and non-celiac wheat sensitivity (NCWS), often experience challenges when accessing gluten-free (GF) foods. Aims To identify barriers perceived by students with GRD to access GF products on-campus of universities and colleges across Canada. Methods We conducted a cross sectional survey using the RedCap platform and distributed it to the Canadian Celiac Association community. We included students who reported adopting a GFD for various reasons including CeD and other GRD. We collected data on adherence to the GFD using a validated questionnaire (CDAT), presence of perceived barriers to follow a GFD while dining on campus, persistent symptoms, and altered quality of life. Continuous data are expressed as median (IQR), and categorical data as proportions of patients. Mann-Whitney U and Chi2 with Fisher correction were used to assess differences between groups. Results Seventy nine students responded to the survey (5% male and median age = 25 yrs) and 78 had complete data for analysis. Of the 78 students, 52 (66.6%) reported a diagnosis of CeD, while 26 were adopting a GFD for other reasons (non-CeD). The majority were enrolled in university programs (72/78) and 18% were living on-campus. Almost 90% reported difficulties maintaining a GFD while dining on-campus. Similar proportion of CeD and non-CeD reported eating gluten accidentally (75% vs 80%), while 15% reported eating gluten intentionally on-campus at least a few times per week. This was observed more frequently in non-CeD compared with students with CeD (61% vs 17%; p=0.04). Barriers identified in CeD versus non-CeD groups were related to a reduced GF-food variety (48% vs 69%), lack of availability of GF food (21% vs 46%) and increased cost (46% vs 81%) compared with gluten-containing counterparts. The majority of participants were concerned whether the food available on-campus was truly GF (80% vs 54%) as they reported foods not properly labelled. The majority of participants considered their overall health (79%) and quality of life (65%) was fair to terrible while dining on campus. During the pandemic, 76% of them perceived that it was easier to stick to a GF diet. Conclusions Students from various universities and colleges across Canada experience barriers to access GF food on-campus. This has a significant impact on their overall health and quality of life. Proper food labeling, GF certification and improving the variety of GF food on-campus are options for improvement. 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".