4.2 Article

Prediction of adherence to a gluten-free diet using protection motivation theory among adults with coeliac disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 391-398

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12321

Keywords

adherence behaviour; coeliac disease; gluten-free diet; psychosocial

Funding

  1. HSS Seed Grant from the Faculty of Education at The University of British Columbia
  2. CIHR
  3. Michael Smith Foundation Health Research awards

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundCoeliac disease is a chronic autoimmune disease that requires strict adherence to a gluten-free diet. However, strict adherence to a gluten-free diet is difficult, with findings from a recent review suggesting that up to 42% of individuals with coeliac disease do not eat a strict gluten-free diet. MethodsThe present study aimed to examine psychosocial predictors of adherence (purposeful and accidental) to a gluten-free diet among adults with coeliac disease over a 1-month period. In this longitudinal study, 212 North American adults with coeliac disease completed online questionnaires at two time points, baseline and 1month later. ResultsThe results revealed that intentions partially mediated the effects of symptom severity, self-regulatory efficacy, planning and knowledge on purposeful gluten consumption. Intentions did not mediate the effects of severity, response cost, self-regulatory efficacy, planning and knowledge for accidental gluten consumption but, interestingly, self-regulatory efficacy directly predicted fewer accidental incidents of gluten-consumption. ConclusionsThese findings delineate the differential psychological processes in understanding accidental and purposeful gluten consumption among adults with coeliac disease and emphasise the importance of bolstering self-regulatory efficacy beliefs to prevent accidental and purposeful consumption of gluten.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available