Using fundraising incentives and point-of-purchase nutrition promotion to improve food choices among school families in restaurants: a pilot and feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of in-restaurant interventions aiming to promote healthy choices via fundraising incentives benefiting school wellness programmes and point-of-purchase nutrition promotion. DESIGN: Twelve schools were randomly assigned to one of the two intervention periods: Fundraising Incentive (FI) donated funds for visiting the study restaurant and Fundraising-Healthy Eating Incentive (F-HEI) included FI with additional funds given when selecting a healthier item. Both conditions included point-of-purchase nutrition promotions. Families were recruited to attend their designated intervention and complete a survey. Feasibility was assessed based on recruitment and participation, implementation fidelity and intervention acceptability. Efficacy was assessed by comparing participant receipts between intervention periods and by comparing overall restaurant sales during intervention v. two no-intervention time frames. SETTING: Fast-casual restaurant in Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: Parents with children attending participating schools. RESULTS: Eighty-one families visited the restaurant during the intervention, with sixty-six completing surveys. All study activities were implemented successfully, but school family participation in the intervention was low (0·95 %). Among participants completing surveys, all indicated satisfaction with the programme. The percentage of healthier items ordered was significantly greater during both FI (χ2 = 5·97, P = 0·01) and F-HEI (χ2 = 8·84, P = 0·003) v. Comparison 2. Results were similar but did not reach statistical significance when comparing the interventions to Comparison 1. CONCLUSIONS: Results support potential efficacy of this programme, but more research is needed to inform feasibility. Fidelity and acceptability data supported feasibility, but participation rates were low in this initial study. Methods evaluating this intervention with a greater proportion of parents should be considered.

Barriers impeding serologic screening for celiac disease in clinically high-prevalence populations.

BACKGROUND: Celiac disease is present in ~1% of the general population in the United States and Europe. Despite the availability of inexpensive serologic screening tests, ~85% of individuals with celiac disease remain undiagnosed and there is an average delay in diagnosis of symptomatic individuals with celiac disease that ranges from ~5.8-11 years. This delay is often attributed to the use of a case-based approach for detection rather than general population screening for celiac disease, and deficiencies at the level of health care professionals. This study aimed to assess if patient-centered barriers have a role in impeding serologic screening for celiac disease in individuals from populations that are clinically at an increased risk for celiac disease. METHODS: 119 adults meeting study inclusion criteria for being at a higher risk for celiac disease were recruited from the general population. Participants completed a survey/questionnaire at the William K. Warren Medical Research Center for Celiac Disease that addressed demographic information, celiac disease related symptoms (gastrointestinal and extraintestinal), family history, co-morbid diseases and conditions associated with celiac disease, and patient-centered barriers to screening for celiac disease. All participants underwent serologic screening for celiac disease using the IgA tissue transglutaminase antibody (IgA tTG) and, if positive, testing for IgA anti-endomysial antibody (IgA EMA) as a confirmatory test. RESULTS: Two barriers to serologic testing were significant across the participant pool. These were participants not knowing they were at risk for celiac disease before learning of the study, and participants not knowing where to get tested for celiac disease. Among participants with incomes less than $25,000/year and those less than the median age, not having a doctor to order the test was a significant barrier, and this strongly correlated with not having health insurance. Symptoms and co-morbid conditions were similar among those whose IgA tTG were negative and those who tested positive. CONCLUSION: There are significant patient-centered barriers that impede serologic screening and contribute to the delayed detection and diagnosis of celiac disease. These barriers may be lessened by greater education of the public and health care professionals about celiac disease symptoms, risk factors, and serologic testing.

Can consumers trust web-based information about celiac disease? Accuracy, comprehensiveness, transparency, and readability of information on the internet.

BACKGROUND: Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease that affects approximately 1% of the US population. Disease is characterized by damage to the small intestinal lining and malabsorption of nutrients. Celiac disease is activated in genetically susceptible individuals by dietary exposure to gluten in wheat and gluten-like proteins in rye and barley. Symptoms are diverse and include gastrointestinal and extraintestinal manifestations. Treatment requires strict adherence to a gluten-free diet. The Internet is a major source of health information about celiac disease. Nonetheless, information about celiac disease that is available on various websites often is questioned by patients and other health care professionals regarding its reliability and content. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy, comprehensiveness, transparency, and readability of information on 100 of the most widely accessed websites that provide information on celiac disease. METHODS: Using the search term celiac disease, we analyzed 100 of the top English-language websites published by academic, commercial, nonprofit, and other professional (nonacademic) sources for accuracy, comprehensiveness, transparency, and reading grade level. Each site was assessed independently by 3 reviewers. Website accuracy and comprehensiveness were probed independently using a set of objective core information about celiac disease. We used 19 general criteria to assess website transparency. Website readability was determined by the Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level. Results for each parameter were analyzed independently. In addition, we weighted and combined parameters to generate an overall score, termed website quality. RESULTS: We included 98 websites in the final analysis. Of these, 47 (48%) provided specific information about celiac disease that was less than 95% accurate (ie, the predetermined cut-off considered a minimum acceptable level of accuracy). Independent of whether the information posted was accurate, 51 of 98 (52%) websites contained less than 50% of the core celiac disease information that was considered important for inclusion on websites that provide general information about celiac disease. Academic websites were significantly less transparent (P = .005) than commercial websites in attributing authorship, timeliness of information, sources of information, and other important disclosures. The type of website publisher did not predict website accuracy, comprehensiveness, or overall website quality. Only 4 of 98 (4%) websites achieved an overall quality score of 80 or above, which a priori was set as the minimum score for a website to be judged trustworthy and reliable. CONCLUSIONS: The information on many websites addressing celiac disease was not sufficiently accurate, comprehensive, and transparent, or presented at an appropriate reading grade level, to be considered sufficiently trustworthy and reliable for patients, health care providers, celiac disease support groups, and the general public. This has the potential to adversely affect decision making about important aspects of celiac disease, including its appropriate and proper diagnosis, treatment, and management.