Development of a food anaphylaxis education program to help parents live well with food allergies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk for food induced anaphylaxis appears to be increasing with significant impact on children, parents and family life. Families need to understand how to avoid the allergen and recognize and respond to reactions. Safety measures and risk must be balanced to ensure the child and family live well with the allergy. We developed and piloted an education program for parents of children <6 years old recently diagnosed with a severe food allergy. Literature review Literature review Creation of program objectives and outline Creation of program objectives and outline Consultation with health care experts, parent representatives of food allergy organizations and an education specialist Consultation with health care experts, parent representatives of food allergy organizations and an education specialist Development of program content and process Development of program content and process Feedback from reviewers Feedback from reviewers Piloted Program: participant pre-assessment, small group sessions, participant feedback post program Piloted Program: participant pre-assessment, small group sessions, participant feedback post program We developed a small group, 2 session, interactive program using SMARTBoard technology, iclickers , discussion, video clips, skill training and problem-solving We developed a small group, 2 session, interactive program using SMARTBoard technology, iclickers , discussion, video clips, skill training and problem-solving 43 families registered 43 families registered 29 (67%) families completed ( 27 mothers, 16 fathers, 1 grandmother) 29 (67%) families completed ( 27 mothers, 16 fathers, 1 grandmother) Parental burden & self-efficacy pre-assessment indicated concerns about activities, communication and allergic reactions Parental burden & self-efficacy pre-assessment indicated concerns about activities, communication and allergic reactions Auto-injector pre-assessment – 48 demonstrations observed; 73% did not complete all steps correctly Auto-injector pre-assessment – 48 demonstrations observed; 73% did not complete all steps correctly 32 (73%) people completing the program believed 2 sessions were sufficient 32 (73%) people completing the program believed 2 sessions were sufficient Our pilot suggests this interactive, small group program is a useful resource for families learning how to live with a serious food allergy. We identified activities and topics requiring adjustment and obtained feedback to help improve future sessions. Follow up with families will be important for further evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".