Dissemination of an Online Theory-Based Intervention to Improve Gluten-Free Diet Adherence in Coeliac Disease: the Relationship Between Acceptability, Effectiveness, and Attrition




Both acceptability and behaviour change data provide important information about the likelihood of success of an intervention when disseminated outside the research context. Despite this, few studies have combined such data for use in ongoing intervention development.


To assess the acceptability and feasibility of an online intervention to improve gluten-free diet (GFD) adherence in coeliac disease, and to examine the relationships with participant characteristics, attrition, and effectiveness to inform ongoing intervention developments to ultimately reduce attrition and improve the reach and effectiveness of the programme.


All participants completed measures of GFD adherence, theory of planned behaviour variables, psychological symptoms, and demographic and disease characteristics. Acceptability and feasibility ratings were obtained at the conclusion of each of the six intervention modules. Chi-square analyses were used to examine differences between completers and non-completers, and Spearman’s correlations were used to determine the relationships between participant characteristics, effectiveness, and acceptability and feasibility.


Participants who rated the early modules less favourably were more likely to drop-out of the intervention. Acceptability and feasibility ratings were also associated with the presence of psychological symptoms, use of adaptive coping strategies, GFD duration, and attitude change.


The findings suggest that changes to the structure and implementation of the intervention may be useful in minimising attrition and maximising effectiveness for future dissemination in a wider coeliac disease population.


Acceptability Feasibility Attrition Gluten-free diet adherence Coeliac disease 


  1. 1.
    Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Fernandez ME. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weinreich NK. Pretesting hands-on social marketing: a step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Titov N, Andrews G, Davies M, McIntyre K, Robinson E, Solley K. Internet treatment for depression: a randomized controlled trial comparing clinician vs. technician assistance. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10939.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Titov N, Dear BF, Schwencke G, Andrews G, Johnston L, Craske MG, et al. Transdiagnostic internet treatment for anxiety and depression: a randomised controlled trial. Behav Res Ther. 2011;49:441–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vandelanotte C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Brug J. Acceptability and feasibility of an interactive computer-tailored fat intake intervention in Belgium. Health Promot Int. 2004;19:463–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kothe E, Mullan B. Acceptability and feasibility of an email-based nutrition intervention using the theory of planned behaviour in Australia: Fresh facts. Health Promot Int. 2012. doi: 10.1093/heapro/das043.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hightow-Weidman LB, Pike E, Fowler B, Matthews DM, Kibe J, McCoy R, et al. HealthMpowerment.org: feasibility and acceptability of delivering an Internet intervention to young Black men who have sex with men. AIDS Care: Psychol Socio-med AIDS/HIV. 2012;24:910–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sainsbury K, Mullan B, Sharpe L. A randomized controlled trial of an online intervention to improve gluten free diet adherence in celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:811–7. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Green PHR, Cellier C. Celiac disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1731–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Green PHR, Jabri B. Coeliac disease. Lancet. 2003;362:383–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall NJ, Rubin G, Charnock A. Systematic review: adherence to a gluten-free diet in adult patients with coeliac disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:315–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sainsbury K, Mullan B. Measuring beliefs about gluten free diet adherence in adult coeliac disease using the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite. 2011;56:476–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sainsbury K, Mullan B, Sharpe L. Gluten free diet adherence in coeliac disease: the role of psychological symptoms in bridging the intention-behaviour gap. Appetite. 2013;61:52–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sainsbury K, Mullan B, Sharpe L. Reduced quality of life in coeliac disease is more strongly associated with depression than gastrointestinal symptoms. J Psychosom Res. 2013;75:135–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol. 2008;27:379–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abraham C, Kok G, Schaalma H, Luszczynska A. Health promotion. In: Martin PR, Cheung F, Kyrios M, Littlefield L, Knowles L, Overmier M, et al., editors. The international association of applied psychology handbook of applied psychology. Oxford: Wiley; 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioural therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clin Pscyhol Rev. 2006;26:17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leffler DA, Dennis M, Edwards-George J, Jamma S, Magge S, Cook EF, et al. A simple validated gluten-free diet adherence survey for adults with celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:530–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murphy B, Herrman H, Hawthorne G, Pinzone T, Evert H. Australian WHOQOL instruments: users manual and interpretation guide. Melbourne: Australian WHOQOL Field Study Centre; 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS). 2nd ed. Sydney: Psychology Foundation of Australia; 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garner DM. Eating disorder inventory—3. Professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.; 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carver C. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med. 1997;4:92–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vandelanotte C, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Acceptability and feasibility of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention using stages of change: Project FAITH. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:304–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hornik R. The knowledge-behaviour gap in public information campaigns: a development communication view. In: Salmon CT, editor. Information campaigns: balancing social values and social change. Newbury Park: Sage; 1989. p. 113–38.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rimal RN. Closing the knowledge-behaviour gap in health promotion: the mediating role of self-efficacy. Health Commun. 2000;12:219–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wangberg SC, Bergmo TS, Johnsen JK. Adherence in Internet-based interventions. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2008;2:57–65.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riemsma RP, Pattenden J, Bridle C, Sowden AJ, Mather L, Watt IS, et al. Systematic review of the effectiveness of stage based interventions to promote smoking cessation. BMJ. 2003;326:1175–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adams J, White M. Why don’t stage-based activity promotion interventions work? Health Educ Res. 2005;20:237–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnston L, Titov N, Andrews G, Spence J, Dear BF. A RCT of a transdiagnostic Internet-delivered treatment for three anxiety disorders: examination of support roles and disorder-specific outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e28079.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eastin MS, Guinsler NM. Worried and wired: effects of health anxiety on information-seeking and health care utilization behaviours. Cyber Psychol Behav. 2006;9:494–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sainsbury K. Adherence to the gluten free diet in coeliac disease: an intervention mapping approach using the theory of planned behaviour and psychological symptoms: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 2013.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roberts ME, Tchanturia K, Stahl D, Southgate L, Treasure J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of set-shifting ability in eating disorders. Psychol Med. 2007;37:1075–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lena SM, Fiocco A, Leyenaar JK. The role of cognitive deficits in the development of eating disorders. Neuropsychol Rev. 2004;14:99–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beck JS. Cognitive behaviour therapy: basics and beyond. 2nd ed. New York: The Guildford; 2011.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Christensen H, Griffiths KM, Farrer L. Adherence in internet interventions for anxiety and depression: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11:e13.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Behavioral Medicine 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirby Sainsbury
    • 1
  • Barbara Mullan
    • 2
  • Louise Sharpe
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Psychology Unit, School of PsychologyThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin UniversityWAAustralia

Personalised recommendations