National Celiac Disease Awareness Day | September 13, 2026
National Celiac Disease Awareness Day 2026: Turn Awareness into an Accountable Care Route
A credible observance helps people move from recognition to appropriate evaluation, confirmed diagnosis, skilled nutrition support, and reliable long-term follow-through without leaving them to coordinate the system alone.
Observance identity: Beyond Celiac identifies September 13 as National Celiac Disease Awareness Day. This article uses the date as a leadership prompt, not as a diagnostic campaign or a substitute for individualized medical care. Review the observance context from Beyond Celiac.
Recognition connected to responsibility
Treat awareness as the beginning of a coordinated clinical and support route
Celiac disease is a chronic immune-mediated condition in which gluten exposure causes harm in genetically susceptible people. Its presentation can extend beyond gastrointestinal symptoms, and people may arrive through primary care, pediatrics, gastroenterology, dermatology, behavioral health, neurology, nutrition services, urgent care, or a family member's diagnosis. That variation creates a familiar enterprise risk: a person can be visible to several parts of the system without any one part owning the route.
An awareness message can help someone recognize that symptoms, nutritional concerns, or family history deserve attention. It can also cause harm if it implies that a symptom list establishes a diagnosis, encourages a gluten-free diet before evaluation, or sends people to a generic resource page with no way to reach care. The executive standard should be simple: every public message needs a defined next step, and every next step needs a named owner.
Recent evidence reinforces the need for an end-to-end view. A large linked-record study of 1.7 million patients across 13 non-neoplastic conditions examined the frequency and outcomes of emergency diagnosis, including celiac disease, and found important associations between emergency diagnosis and prognosis across the condition set.1 The study does not prove which local intervention will prevent an emergency presentation, but it supports leadership attention to recognition, access, and earlier clinical entry.
After diagnosis, the work changes rather than ends. Studies in adults and children describe quality-of-life, cognitive, sleep, mental-health, social, nutrition, and caregiver concerns.24614 Those findings are not universal predictions. They are reasons to design follow-up that asks about the whole experience instead of reducing success to a single encounter or instruction.
Recognizable
Public information makes uncertainty discussable without turning a symptom list into a diagnosis.
Reachable
A person can find an appropriate clinical entry point, response expectation, and accessibility option.
Owned
A named role remains accountable from referral through diagnostic resolution and transition to ongoing support.
Measurable
Leaders review timeliness, completion, nutrition access, experience, equity, safety, and workload together.
For healthcare executives, the observance is therefore an operational test. Can primary care recognize when the locally approved pathway should begin? Can the system preserve the conditions needed for valid testing while evaluation is underway? Can gastroenterology, laboratory and pathology services, dietetics, behavioral health, pediatrics, and navigation exchange responsibility without gaps? Can first-degree relatives receive an appropriate discussion and route? Can families afford and sustain a nutritionally sound gluten-free diet? Can data teams distinguish a referral placed from a diagnostic episode resolved?
The answer will rarely sit inside one department. Celiac disease crosses clinical, nutritional, behavioral, financial, social, and family systems. A strong observance does not add a one-day campaign beside that complexity. It uses the day to make ownership visible, test the route, and commit to corrective action after the campaign ends.
Evidence with controlled claims
Use current research to shape an accountable route, not to promise one universal outcome
The selected evidence set contains 16 peer-reviewed records published in 2026 and reviewed newest first. It includes one large linked-record cohort study, cross-sectional and retrospective studies, family screening research, nutrition studies, two reviews, a telehealth intervention-development project, and a knowledge-measure development study. Populations and settings include adults, children, adolescents, caregivers, first-degree relatives, members of a national celiac association, tertiary referrals, and the general public across several countries.
This variety helps leaders see the route from several angles. Diagnostic research can inform the front end. Nutrition studies make the continuing burden visible. Quality-of-life and mental-health studies support whole-person follow-up. Family and caregiver studies show that celiac disease management often extends beyond the identified patient. Intervention and measurement-development studies help executives think about implementation and learning. The same variety prevents a single pooled claim about prevalence, effect, or return on investment.
| Evidence group | Count | Appropriate use | Do not infer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observational | 9 | Identify associations, experience, burden, and candidate questions. | Causation or an individual prediction. |
| Nutrition cohort or longitudinal | 2 | Examine dietary patterns and change over time in defined samples. | A universal diet effect or a complete nutrition protocol. |
| Review or synthesis | 2 | Map recurring quality-of-life and mental-health themes. | One best pathway for every setting. |
| Pathway or measure development | 2 | Inform intervention design and careful measurement. | Effectiveness before implementation testing. |
| Family screening | 1 | Support a defined discussion route for first-degree relatives. | A universal testing interval outside local guidance. |
Evidence boundary: The bars are exact counts of selected records, not effect sizes, quality grades, or certainty ratings. Each record is placed in one display group even when it could reasonably fit more than one. The set was selected for this implementation brief and is not a formal systematic review.
Diagnostic access deserves enterprise attention
The large English linked-record study included 1,701,154 patients across 13 conditions and examined emergency diagnosis using primary care, hospital, and mortality data.1 Its strength is scale and linkage. Its limitations include dependence on record accuracy, observational design, historical data from 1999 through 2019, and condition-wide analyses that are not all specific to celiac disease. The leadership implication is not that one public campaign will change outcomes. It is that diagnostic route performance should be visible, investigated, and owned.
A single-center study of second screening among first-degree relatives of pediatric index cases shows another route challenge: risk can remain relevant after an earlier negative result, and family pathways need deliberate follow-through.5 The study does not establish a universal rescreening rule. It supports a process in which clinicians can identify first-degree relatives, explain the locally approved approach, document the plan, and provide a re-entry mechanism if circumstances change.
Dietary treatment is clinically necessary and operationally demanding
A gluten-free diet is not simply a preference list. It requires knowledge, ingredient and cross-contact vigilance, family coordination, access to appropriate food, and attention to overall nutritional quality. The pediatric study of ultra-processed food consumption used dietary recalls and the NOVA and KIDMED frameworks in a sample of 128 children.3 It highlights the value of nutrition intervention that looks beyond gluten exclusion. Recall methods, sample characteristics, and local food environments limit generalization.
A survey of 959 Danish respondents with confirmed celiac disease examined attitudes and barriers related to consuming more plant-based foods.8 Association membership, self-selection, and national context affect applicability, but the study reinforces a practical point: dietary recommendations interact with taste, availability, knowledge, cost, preparation, and confidence. Executives should not label these interactions as individual noncompliance before examining the environment in which the person is expected to succeed.
Quality of life and mental health belong in the follow-up conversation
Small cross-sectional studies cannot define every patient's experience, yet they show why a narrow symptom check is insufficient. The 2026 study of brain fog, sleep quality, cognitive function, and quality of life included 62 participants across newly diagnosed, gluten-free diet, and control groups.2 Another study compared mental health and quality-of-life measures in 52 adults with celiac disease and 40 matched controls.6 Both are limited by small samples and cross-sectional designs. They support asking and listening, not assuming causality or promising that one intervention will resolve every concern.
A 2026 review on depressive and anxiety symptoms provides synthesis, while a separate tertiary-referral study examined avoidant and restrictive food intake concerns in adult and pediatric patients with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity.119 The referral population and combined diagnostic context constrain generalization. Still, the evidence supports access to qualified behavioral-health and eating-disorder expertise when clinically indicated, with clear boundaries between routine dietary education and specialized care.
A closed-loop diagnostic-to-support continuum
Build one visible route without oversimplifying clinical decisions
A pathway should make responsibility clear while leaving diagnostic and treatment decisions with qualified clinicians. The public-facing entry can be simple: contact primary care or another locally designated clinical service before changing the diet, explain symptoms and family history, and ask what evaluation is appropriate. Behind that entry point, the organization needs more detail. It needs referral criteria, testing conditions, result communication, specialist access, dietitian capacity, family discussions, and follow-up intervals aligned with current local guidance.
Clinical boundary: This is an operating flow, not a diagnostic algorithm. Test selection, sequence, interpretation, biopsy decisions, dietary treatment, monitoring, and family screening must follow locally approved clinical guidance and individual circumstances.
Protect the conditions for valid evaluation
Awareness content often fails at the first decision point. A person sees a list of symptoms, removes gluten, feels different, and later discovers that evaluation has become more complicated. Public content should therefore avoid a self-test posture and state clearly that people should seek qualified guidance before making a dietary change for diagnostic purposes. Contact-center scripts, chatbot content, search pages, and primary-care messages should use the same boundary.
Resolve every diagnostic episode
A referral placed is not a diagnosis resolved. The organization should define what resolution means for the pilot. Examples include results communicated in understandable language, the next clinical step documented, a responsible clinician identified, and a re-entry instruction provided when uncertainty remains. A result sitting in a portal without interpretation should not count as closure. A canceled specialty appointment should return to a work queue with an owner rather than disappear as patient noncompletion.
Design family follow-through
First-degree relatives may need information and an appropriate discussion with their own clinician. Family pathways are especially vulnerable to diffusion of responsibility because relatives may receive care in different systems. The organization cannot guarantee another person's testing, but it can provide a plain-language family letter, explain what information to share, document that the discussion occurred, and offer a route for relatives who receive care within the system. Any rescreening recommendation must be grounded in current clinical guidance rather than inferred from one study.
Make handoffs visible to patients and teams
At every transfer, the patient should know who owns the next step, what to expect, and what to do if it does not happen. Internally, the referring team needs an acceptance signal. This is basic reliability engineering applied to a care route. It does not require a new platform if existing referral, work-queue, scheduling, and messaging functions can support it. It does require shared definitions and escalation rules.
Access, equity, and everyday feasibility
Treat nutrition support, affordability, and psychosocial burden as pathway performance
A plan can be clinically correct and operationally unusable. Gluten-free food may cost more, be less available, require additional preparation, or be difficult to manage at school, work, restaurants, hospitals, community events, and multigenerational homes. People may need to learn label reading, cross-contact precautions, meal planning, and how to maintain nutritional quality while navigating family preferences and cultural food practices. If the system gives one instruction and no skilled support, it transfers the implementation burden to the patient and family.
The pediatric systematic review of gluten-free diet adherence and quality of life included 13 studies published from 2019 through 2026.7 The authors reported substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, no meta-analysis, reliance on mostly cross-sectional and self-reported data, language restrictions, and limited generalizability. Those limitations matter. The review can help leaders identify domains to ask about, but it cannot support a single adherence threshold or promise that stricter behavior will produce the same quality-of-life result in every child.
Interpretation limit: This fishbone is a qualitative implementation hypothesis informed by the cited literature and common pathway dependencies. It does not rank causes, estimate prevalence, or establish causation. A local team should validate, revise, or reject each branch using its own process data and patient input.
Give dietitians a defined role and enough time
Skilled medical nutrition therapy should not be treated as an optional handout. The pathway should define referral timing, visit length, follow-up, age-appropriate education, family participation, interpreter access, and escalation for micronutrient, growth, restrictive eating, or food-insecurity concerns. A retrospective study of 402 children with biopsy-confirmed celiac disease examined micronutrient deficiencies and nutritional status after at least six months on a gluten-free diet.13 Its retrospective, single-setting design limits transferability, but it supports keeping nutritional assessment visible after the initial diagnosis.
Ask about the social experience
A cross-sectional study of 124 pediatric patients with celiac disease and 139 controls examined bullying victimization, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and diet adherence.4 Self-report, national context, and cross-sectional design mean the findings should not be used to predict an individual child's experience. They do justify a safe question about school, peer, and social barriers, along with a defined route to pediatric, behavioral, and school-support resources when needed.
Caregiver experience also deserves attention. A Jordanian cross-sectional study used an Arabic caregiver quality-of-life instrument among caregivers of children with biopsy-confirmed celiac disease.14 The online, country-specific sample limits generalization, but the research supports family-centered education and practical problem solving. The patient may be the identified clinical subject, while the daily work of food selection, school coordination, and social protection is shared across a household.
Build equity review into the pathway, not after it
Stratify access and completion measures only when definitions, privacy, sample size, and governance make interpretation responsible. Look for differences in time to appointment, diagnostic resolution, dietitian connection, cancellation, and reported barriers by age, language, geography, payer, disability access need, and other locally governed dimensions. Pair quantitative review with patient and caregiver listening. A disparity signal is an invitation to investigate the process, not a label for a population.
Public-awareness research also warrants restraint. A 2026 online survey of 1,011 participants in northern Saudi Arabia examined knowledge and attitudes toward pediatric celiac disease.15 Social-media recruitment, a young-heavy sample, and national context limit transferability. The study supports measuring local message comprehension rather than assuming the public understands diagnostic and dietary boundaries.
An accountable operating system
Connect clinical judgment, nutrition capacity, navigation, data, and executive response
A dependable route is a set of linked responsibilities, not a poster and not a single specialist. Primary care and pediatric teams need recognizable entry criteria and access to decision support. Gastroenterology, laboratory, endoscopy, and pathology services need a coordinated diagnostic process. Dietitians need capacity and protected scope. Behavioral-health and eating-disorder expertise need a defined consult path. Navigators need acceptance signals and escalation authority. Data teams need measures that reflect resolution rather than activity. Executives need to remove capacity, policy, and contracting barriers that front-line staff cannot solve alone.
Implementation boundary: The diagram assigns functions, not credentials or legal authority. Each organization must define scope of practice, clinical governance, consent, documentation, privacy, billing, referral criteria, licensing, and escalation locally.
Make ownership explicit at each transition
The operating agreement should answer five questions for every stage: Who can initiate the step? Who accepts it? What data are necessary? What time expectation applies? What happens when the expected step does not occur? Those answers can be encoded in order sets, referral templates, work queues, scheduler guidance, patient messages, and exception reports. Without them, the pathway depends on individual memory and persistence.
Define a bounded navigator function
Navigation may be performed by a nurse, care coordinator, dietitian, medical assistant, community health worker, or another qualified role, depending on local scope. The function should include acknowledgment, scheduling help, language and accessibility coordination, confirmation that a referral was accepted, barrier escalation, and re-entry. It should not quietly absorb clinical interpretation, nutrition treatment, or crisis responsibilities outside the role's training and authority.
Design behavioral support as part of care, not as a judgment
Food-related vigilance can be protective and necessary in celiac disease. Concern arises when distress, restriction, fear, or impairment exceeds what the care team can address through routine nutrition education. The tertiary-referral record of avoidant and restrictive food intake concerns and the review of depressive and anxiety symptoms support a clear consult pathway.911 They do not support labeling careful gluten avoidance as psychiatric pathology.
Build with patients, caregivers, and clinicians
The GROW project used two rounds of interviews with adolescents, caregivers, and clinicians to inform a behavioral telehealth intervention.10 Its participants came from one multidisciplinary clinic and were predominantly White, female-identifying, and from households above the median income, so adaptation is necessary for broader populations, languages, cultures, and levels of internet access. The transferable lesson is the development method: involve the people who will use and operate the pathway before finalizing the pathway.
Co-design does not mean asking one patient representative to approve a nearly finished plan. Invite participants early enough to change language, visit sequence, contact methods, food-resource options, scheduling assumptions, and measures. Compensate community participants when policy allows. Document what changed because of their input and what could not change, including the reason.
Use knowledge measures carefully
A 2026 study developed and piloted a general knowledge measure for celiac disease using items drawn from published sources and psychometric analysis among 359 participants, with 284 completers.16 Online attrition, pilot status, and sample characteristics limit use. If leaders measure knowledge, they should use a validated or locally tested instrument for an appropriate purpose, not an improvised quiz that becomes a gate to care or a judgment about patient worthiness.
Measurement that supports learning
Measure whether the route resolves needs, not only whether teams completed tasks
A pilot dashboard should balance access, clinical resolution, support connection, patient and caregiver experience, equity, safety, and workforce burden. A count of page views can describe reach, but it cannot show that a person entered appropriate care. A count of referrals can describe activity, but it cannot show acceptance, diagnostic resolution, or successful connection to nutrition support. Measures should therefore follow the route from entry through follow-through.
| Measure | Operational definition | Owner and cadence | Source | Interpretation limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entry acknowledgment | Eligible pilot contacts receiving human or clinically governed acknowledgment within the locally defined interval divided by eligible pilot contacts. | Navigation lead, weekly | Contact log or work queue | Fast acknowledgment does not establish appropriate clinical resolution. |
| Referral acceptance | Pathway referrals with a receiving service acceptance signal divided by pathway referrals sent. | Operations lead, weekly | Referral system | Acceptance does not mean the visit occurred or the diagnosis was established. |
| Diagnostic resolution | Eligible diagnostic episodes with results explained, next step documented, and accountable clinician identified divided by eligible episodes reaching the measurement window. | Clinical lead, monthly | EHR review or validated registry | Requires a governed definition and exclusion logic; not a measure of diagnostic accuracy by itself. |
| Dietitian connection | Newly confirmed pilot patients offered an appropriate dietitian appointment and those completing the initial visit, reported separately. | Dietetics lead, monthly | Referral and scheduling data | Offer and completion should not be collapsed; capacity and patient preference affect both. |
| Reported barrier resolution | Documented access barriers with an action and disposition divided by barriers identified in the pilot. | Navigator, biweekly | Minimum-necessary barrier log | Under-documentation can make performance appear better than experience. |
| Patient understanding | Brief, voluntary post-contact item asking whether the person understands the next step and who owns it. | Experience lead, monthly | Accessible survey or call-back sample | Response bias and language or digital access can distort results. |
| Equity review | Selected access and completion measures examined across locally governed demographic and access dimensions with small-cell protection. | Equity and data leads, monthly | Linked operational data | Differences require investigation and do not explain cause. |
| Workforce burden | Navigator queue size, unresolved exceptions, overtime signal, and staff-reported process friction reviewed together. | Operational sponsor, weekly | Queue, staffing, and brief team pulse | A single workload metric cannot represent complexity or well-being. |
Measurement boundary: These are pilot specifications, not national benchmarks. Denominators, exclusions, time windows, acceptable thresholds, privacy controls, and data quality checks must be approved locally before use. Do not use the dashboard to grade individual patients or clinicians.
Separate reach, process, and outcome
Reach asks who encountered the message and who entered the route. Process asks whether the system responded, accepted the handoff, completed the workup, and connected support. Outcomes ask whether the person understood the plan, experienced fewer barriers, and received an appropriate resolution. These levels should not be substituted for one another. A highly viewed awareness page with no governed entry point is reach without a pathway. A high referral count with no acceptance signal is process initiation without closure.
Pair quantitative data with structured listening
Interview or listening-session questions can reveal why a measure changed. Ask patients and caregivers what was hardest to understand, which transition required repeated effort, whether the nutrition plan felt feasible, and whether the next owner was clear. Ask clinicians where they encounter ambiguity, rejected referrals, result delays, or scope problems. Protect privacy and avoid requesting unnecessary personal detail. Summarize themes without converting a small qualitative sample into prevalence claims.
Use balancing measures to prevent hidden harm
Improving one part of the route can burden another. A broad awareness campaign may increase demand beyond dietitian or specialty capacity. A stricter referral template may improve completeness while excluding people who need help completing it. Faster work queues may increase staff overtime. Track capacity, wait time, rejected referrals, unresolved exceptions, duplicate testing, patient complaints, and staff burden alongside the desired improvements.
A bounded implementation agenda
Use 90 days to map, test, learn, and make an explicit decision
The goal of a 90-day pilot is not to redesign every celiac disease service. It is to test one bounded route in a defined population, location, or referral source. The pilot should have a named executive sponsor, clinical owner, operational lead, dietetics lead, data partner, patient or caregiver partners, and a stop rule. Scope control protects safety and makes learning interpretable.
| Window | Primary owners | Dependencies | Milestone |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 0–30 | Executive sponsor, clinical lead, operations, dietetics, data, patient partners | Approved scope; local clinical guidance; capacity inventory; privacy review | Signed pilot charter, current-state map, definitions, scripts, and stop rules |
| Days 31–60 | Operational lead, navigator, clinicians, dietitians, experience partner | Training complete; work queues active; escalation contacts available | Bounded launch with weekly exception and learning review |
| Days 61–90 | Sponsor, quality, equity, finance, workforce, patient partners | Sufficient data quality; qualitative feedback; balancing-measure review | Documented scale, adapt, pause, or stop decision with accountable next steps |
Timeline boundary: Ninety days is an implementation learning window, not a promise of clinical impact. Organizations should reduce scope, extend the pilot, or pause if governance, capacity, data quality, or safety prerequisites are not met.
Days 0 through 30: define the route and its boundaries
Select one pilot population and entry point. Map the current journey with patients, caregivers, primary-care clinicians, gastroenterology, laboratory and pathology representatives, dietitians, behavioral-health partners, schedulers, navigators, data teams, and accessibility or language-access leaders. Identify where responsibility currently becomes ambiguous. Inventory specialty and dietitian capacity before creating demand. Approve clinical boundaries, public language, referral fields, result-resolution criteria, urgent escalation, data definitions, small-cell protection, and stop rules.
Build the minimum viable operating tools: a public or internal entry statement, a contact route, a governed referral template, acceptance signal, navigator work queue, result-resolution definition, dietitian connection workflow, family-information packet, barrier log, and concise dashboard. Test the words with patients and caregivers. Test the route with staff using realistic scenarios, including a person who changed the diet before evaluation, a family member asking what to do, a referral rejected for missing information, an interpreter need, and a canceled appointment.
Days 31 through 60: launch small and review exceptions weekly
Begin with the bounded population. Review every unresolved exception rather than waiting for the monthly dashboard. Look for referrals without acceptance, results without explanation, dietitian delays, patient confusion, language or digital barriers, work-queue accumulation, and hidden overtime. Repair the process while keeping version control over scripts and definitions. If demand exceeds capacity, narrow the campaign or add capacity before expanding reach.
Collect a brief voluntary experience signal and conduct a small number of structured listening conversations. Ask whether the person knew the next step, whether the handoff occurred as described, and whether the plan was feasible. Invite front-line staff to identify workarounds because workarounds often reveal missing design. Do not treat anecdotes as rates. Use them to explain the operational data and generate testable changes.
Days 61 through 90: evaluate the full route and decide
Review access, acceptance, diagnostic resolution, dietitian connection, barriers, patient understanding, equity, capacity, and workforce burden together. Examine missing data and denominator quality before interpreting improvement. Compare the pilot with its baseline when feasible, but do not claim causation from a short uncontrolled implementation test. Document which pathway elements were used, which failed, what patients and staff changed, and which risks remain.
The executive decision should be explicit: scale, adapt, pause, or stop. Scale only if the route is safe, owned, feasible, and measurable. Adapt when the concept is sound but a population, handoff, technology, or capacity assumption failed. Pause when governance or data quality prevents responsible interpretation. Stop when burden or risk exceeds benefit. Assign an owner and date for every follow-up action so the observance does not end with an unimplemented report.
Leadership close: awareness is credible when the route works
National Celiac Disease Awareness Day can increase recognition, but recognition is not the final deliverable. The final deliverable is a route that helps people reach qualified evaluation, protects diagnostic integrity, communicates results, connects skilled nutrition and psychosocial support, recognizes family realities, and maintains ownership over time.
The evidence does not offer a single universal blueprint. It offers a disciplined reason to look across the continuum. Diagnostic access, dietary quality, quality of life, mental health, caregiver burden, public knowledge, family screening, and long-term follow-through are connected operating concerns. The executive opportunity is to choose a bounded starting point, make responsibility visible, learn from patients and staff, and keep improvement active after September 13.
For adjacent planning, review the National Celiac Disease Awareness Month 2026 executive brief and the Chronic Disease Awareness Day 2026 executive brief.
Peer-reviewed evidence
References
The references are listed newest first. DOI links lead to public publisher or resolver records. Publication year does not remove the need to assess design, population, setting, and study limitations.
- Whitfield E, White B, Barclay ME, et al. Frequency and prognostic outcomes of emergency diagnosis in 13 non-neoplastic conditions in England: A population-based cohort study using linked electronic health records of 1.7 million patients. PLoS Medicine. 2026;23(8):e1005182. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1005182.
- Altinsoy C, Kahramanoğlu Aksoy E, Ayte MR, et al. Beyond the Gut: Brain Fog, Sleep Quality, Cognitive Function and Quality of Life in Celiac Disease. Nutrients. 2026;18(14):2365. doi:10.3390/nu18142365.
- Nestares T, Jiménez-Muñoz M, Flor-Alemany M, et al. Patterns of Ultra-Processed Food Consumption in a Gluten-Free Diet: A Target for Nutritional Intervention. Nutrients. 2026;18(13):2173. doi:10.3390/nu18132173.
- Akbulut UE, Atalay A, Işık IA, et al. Bullying victimization in pediatric patients with celiac disease. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics. 2026;68(3):471–484. doi:10.24953/turkjpediatr.2026.7149.
- Teke S, Ergen YM, Akcay BI, et al. Second Screening for Celiac Disease in First-Degree Relatives of Pediatric Index Cases: A Single-Center Observational Study. Journal of Clinical Practice and Research. 2026;48(3):314–321. doi:10.14744/cpr.2026.18242.
- Ozel Coskun BD, Sevinc N. Mental health, quality of life and associated factors in adults with celiac disease. Nutricion Hospitalaria. 2026;43(3):643–651. doi:10.20960/nh.05946.
- Cascobelo-Águeda L, Garrido-Bueno M, Rodríguez-García M, et al. The Multidimensional Impact of Gluten-Free Diet Adherence on Quality of Life in Pediatric and Adolescent Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review. Children. 2026;13(6):722. doi:10.3390/children13060722.
- Nielsen CC, Linneberg A, Kårhus LL, et al. Attitudes and Barriers Toward Consumption of More Plant-Based Foods Among Danish Patients with Celiac Disease. Nutrients. 2026;18(11):1673. doi:10.3390/nu18111673.
- Atkins M, Peterson B, Staller K, et al. Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Is Common in Adult and Pediatric Patients with Celiac Disease and Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity. Nutrients. 2026;18(10):1585. doi:10.3390/nu18101585.
- Vagadori J, Trojanowski PJ, Keenan C, et al. Behavioral telehealth intervention development for adolescents with celiac disease and their caregivers: The Gluten-Free Resilience and Overall Wellness (GROW) project. Nutrition & Health. 2026;32(3):869–885. doi:10.1177/02601060251330938.
- Sas KP, Zieliński D, Piegza M. Depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with celiac disease: co-occurrence and mutual dependencies. Psychiatria Polska. 2026;60(2):293–307. doi:10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/203065.
- Domsa EM, Para I, Sitar Taut AV, et al. Clinical and Histopathological Profile of Adults with Celiac Disease at Diagnosis and on a Gluten-Free Diet: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study. Clinics and Practice. 2026;16(5):88. doi:10.3390/clinpract16050088.
- Düztaş DT, Tülüce ME, Uyar GÖ. Micronutrient Deficiencies and Nutritional Status in Children with Celiac Disease: A Retrospective Study. Children. 2026;13(4):547. doi:10.3390/children13040547.
- Al-Dala'ien A, Alnawaiseh N, Al-Refu K, et al. Psychosocial Impact of Celiac Disease on Primary Caregivers of Children in Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Study. Children. 2026;13(4):533. doi:10.3390/children13040533.
- Esmaeel SE, Alanazi NAS, Alanazi RAS, et al. Public Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes Towards Celiac Disease in Children: A Cross-Sectional Study. Advances in Public Health. 2026:1–11. doi:10.1155/adph/5751348.
- Lavis T, Horsburgh KA, Gould JF, et al. Developing a Measure to Assess General Knowledge for Coeliac Disease. Health Expectations. 2026;29(2):1–14. doi:10.1111/hex.70623.