Samagra Agarwal, Shubham Prasad, Ashish Agarwal, Raja A Raja Ali, Daniel A Leffler, Peter H R Green, David S Sanders, Robert P Anderson, Vineet Ahuja, Chris J J Mulder, Govind K Makharia
{"title":"高收入国家和中低收入国家在乳糜泻护理方面存在显著差异:对来自 63 个国家的乳糜泻专家进行的全球调查。","authors":"Samagra Agarwal, Shubham Prasad, Ashish Agarwal, Raja A Raja Ali, Daniel A Leffler, Peter H R Green, David S Sanders, Robert P Anderson, Vineet Ahuja, Chris J J Mulder, Govind K Makharia","doi":"10.1111/jgh.16793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Celiac disease (CeD) is increasingly diagnosed but significant disparities exist in awareness, practices, resources, and legislation worldwide. We conducted a global online survey with CeD experts to assess this disparity internationally.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 55 questions survey encompassing nine domains relevant to CeD care (awareness, gluten-free [GF] foods availability/cost/quality, GF labeling, CeD dietician availability, insurance for CeD patients, medical training, research funding, patient support groups, and unmet needs) was generated and sent to CeD experts worldwide electronically. Countries were stratified based on per capita income as high-income (HIC) and lower-income countries (LIC) (including upper-middle-, lower-middle-, and low-income countries). Survey responses were summarized as a single score using principal component analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Valid responses were obtained from 131(37.4%) [HIC: 71; LIC: 60] of contacted CeD experts from 63 countries. Compared with HIC, LIC experts perceived worse availability (HIC:80% vs LIC: 47%; P < 0.001), quality (52% vs 20%; P < 0.001), and legislation for labeling of GF foods (82% vs 37%; P < 0.001), with unfavorable reimbursement policies (27% vs 12%; P = 0.002), subsidies (32% vs 13%; P < 0.001), and insurance (76% vs 43%; P < 0.001) for CeD patients. LIC also lacked awareness about CeD among general physicians (69% vs 32%; P < 0.001), trained celiac dieticians (39% vs 12%; P = 0.002), and active CeD patient support groups (93% vs 50%; P < 0.001). All experts believed that GF foods were costly (94% vs 87%), frequently contaminated (27% vs 32%), and unfavorably taxed (97% and 93%). The experts agreed on key unmet needs and better research funding. Overall CeD preparedness score (median 58.3 vs 33.0; P < 0.001) was also associated with income.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present survey highlights the opinion of global experts on the challenges, opportunities, and preparedness related to CeD and differences worldwide by income.</p>","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Celiac disease care differs significantly between high- and low-middle-income countries: a global survey of celiac experts from 63 countries.\",\"authors\":\"Samagra Agarwal, Shubham Prasad, Ashish Agarwal, Raja A Raja Ali, Daniel A Leffler, Peter H R Green, David S Sanders, Robert P Anderson, Vineet Ahuja, Chris J J Mulder, Govind K Makharia\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgh.16793\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Celiac disease (CeD) is increasingly diagnosed but significant disparities exist in awareness, practices, resources, and legislation worldwide. We conducted a global online survey with CeD experts to assess this disparity internationally.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 55 questions survey encompassing nine domains relevant to CeD care (awareness, gluten-free [GF] foods availability/cost/quality, GF labeling, CeD dietician availability, insurance for CeD patients, medical training, research funding, patient support groups, and unmet needs) was generated and sent to CeD experts worldwide electronically. Countries were stratified based on per capita income as high-income (HIC) and lower-income countries (LIC) (including upper-middle-, lower-middle-, and low-income countries). Survey responses were summarized as a single score using principal component analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Valid responses were obtained from 131(37.4%) [HIC: 71; LIC: 60] of contacted CeD experts from 63 countries. Compared with HIC, LIC experts perceived worse availability (HIC:80% vs LIC: 47%; P < 0.001), quality (52% vs 20%; P < 0.001), and legislation for labeling of GF foods (82% vs 37%; P < 0.001), with unfavorable reimbursement policies (27% vs 12%; P = 0.002), subsidies (32% vs 13%; P < 0.001), and insurance (76% vs 43%; P < 0.001) for CeD patients. LIC also lacked awareness about CeD among general physicians (69% vs 32%; P < 0.001), trained celiac dieticians (39% vs 12%; P = 0.002), and active CeD patient support groups (93% vs 50%; P < 0.001). All experts believed that GF foods were costly (94% vs 87%), frequently contaminated (27% vs 32%), and unfavorably taxed (97% and 93%). The experts agreed on key unmet needs and better research funding. Overall CeD preparedness score (median 58.3 vs 33.0; P < 0.001) was also associated with income.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present survey highlights the opinion of global experts on the challenges, opportunities, and preparedness related to CeD and differences worldwide by income.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16793\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16793","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Celiac disease care differs significantly between high- and low-middle-income countries: a global survey of celiac experts from 63 countries.
Background and aim: Celiac disease (CeD) is increasingly diagnosed but significant disparities exist in awareness, practices, resources, and legislation worldwide. We conducted a global online survey with CeD experts to assess this disparity internationally.
Methods: A 55 questions survey encompassing nine domains relevant to CeD care (awareness, gluten-free [GF] foods availability/cost/quality, GF labeling, CeD dietician availability, insurance for CeD patients, medical training, research funding, patient support groups, and unmet needs) was generated and sent to CeD experts worldwide electronically. Countries were stratified based on per capita income as high-income (HIC) and lower-income countries (LIC) (including upper-middle-, lower-middle-, and low-income countries). Survey responses were summarized as a single score using principal component analysis.
Results: Valid responses were obtained from 131(37.4%) [HIC: 71; LIC: 60] of contacted CeD experts from 63 countries. Compared with HIC, LIC experts perceived worse availability (HIC:80% vs LIC: 47%; P < 0.001), quality (52% vs 20%; P < 0.001), and legislation for labeling of GF foods (82% vs 37%; P < 0.001), with unfavorable reimbursement policies (27% vs 12%; P = 0.002), subsidies (32% vs 13%; P < 0.001), and insurance (76% vs 43%; P < 0.001) for CeD patients. LIC also lacked awareness about CeD among general physicians (69% vs 32%; P < 0.001), trained celiac dieticians (39% vs 12%; P = 0.002), and active CeD patient support groups (93% vs 50%; P < 0.001). All experts believed that GF foods were costly (94% vs 87%), frequently contaminated (27% vs 32%), and unfavorably taxed (97% and 93%). The experts agreed on key unmet needs and better research funding. Overall CeD preparedness score (median 58.3 vs 33.0; P < 0.001) was also associated with income.
Conclusions: The present survey highlights the opinion of global experts on the challenges, opportunities, and preparedness related to CeD and differences worldwide by income.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.