Psychosocial aspects of coeliac disease: A cross‐sectional survey of a UK population

Abstract

Coeliac Disease (CD) is an incurable autoimmune condition managed by a therapeutic gluten-free diet for life. European studies suggest that the chronicity of CD, the limitations imposed by the need to follow a permanent restrictive diet and the risk of other associated serious diseases can have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological well-being. However, studies concerning the psychosocial effects of CD in the UK population are scarce. This cross-sectional survey (N=288) explores the illness perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs of adults with CD in the UK and reports their subjective levels of HRQoL and psychological well-being. Results showed that HRQoL and psychological well-being were reduced with levels being comparable to those found in previous related studies. Participants with weak beliefs in the serious consequences of CD and reduced emotional reactions to the condition had a greater likelihood of having enhanced HRQoL, improved psychological well-being and increased self-efficacy. Strong beliefs in personal control over the condition and a greater perceived understanding of CD were also associated with increased self-efficacy.The results suggest that perceived self-efficacy and illness perceptions could play an important role in informing psychological interventions for individuals with CD.

Intentional and inadvertent non-adherence in adult coeliac disease. A cross-sectional survey

“…Our findings add to those from other n.j.hall@durham.ac.uk (Nicola Hall) Not for publication -Tel: +44 (0) 191 33 4 0464 / Fax: +44 (0) 191 33 40361 10 studies looking at the association between concepts from existing theories of health behaviour (Ford et al, 2012;Leffler et al, 2008;Sainsbury & Mullan, 2011), by demonstrating the importance of this distinction in understanding adherence to the GFD. Both types of non-adherence are common with only 28% of respondents reporting not having consumed any gluten at all over the last six months and 40%…”

“…Adherence to the GFD is reported to range between 36%-96% and is associated with a variety of demographic, psychosocial and clinical factors (Ford, Howard & Oyebode, 2012;Hall, Rubin & Charnock, 2009;Sainsbury & Mullan, 2011). Adherence is not usually conceptualised in behavioural terms, despite the acknowledgement of both n.j.hall@durham.ac.uk (Nicola Hall) Not for publication -Tel: +44 (0) 191 33 4 0464 / Fax: +44 (0) 191 33 40361 4 intentional and inadvertent gluten consumption within the literature (Black & Orfila, 2011;Casellas, Lopez & Malagelada, 2006;Dewar et al, 2012;Vahedi et al, 2003).…”

The relationship between gluten free diet adherence and depressive symptoms in adults with coeliac disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis

“…While the narrow inclusion criteria adopted here certainly contributed to this lack of power, only by assessing the degree of adherence in CD patients who have already commenced a GFD -rather than the problematic reliance on categorical distinctions (e.g., on a GFD vs. yet not started a GFD) -and by excluding studies with inadequate measurement of adherence, can the question of interest be answered. In support of the latter point, none of the five studies that were excluded based on unreliable measurement of GFD adherence (i.e., Likert or visual analogue scales assessing the frequency of gluten consumption) found a significant relationship with depressive symptoms (Barratt, Leeds, & Sanders, 2011;Ciacci, Iavarone, Mazzacca, & De Rosa, 1998;Ford, Howard, & Oyebode, 2012;Hauser, Janke, Klump, Gregor, & Hinz, 2010;van Hees, Van der Does, & Giltay, 2013).…”

The psychosocial impacts caused by diagnosis and treatment of Coeliac Disease

“…This datum was also discovered by in the United Kingdom (14) where the better knowledge of CD was associated with a greater self efficacy in relation to the wellbeing of the patient. It is also explained by the SI (13) which understands that social interaction involves a collective formative process, thus the action of a collectiveness must be understood as an act separate from its participants.…”