Coping strategies, alexithymia and anxiety in young patients with food allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food allergy is major public health concern affecting nearly 15 million Americans and 80 million Europeans. Risk of anaphylaxis and implications for social activities affect patients' quality of life and psychological well-being. We previously found that young patients reported higher levels of alexithymia (difficulty in recognizing and expressing emotions) compared with healthy peers and may influence affect, management style and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to explore links between coping strategies, alexithymia and anxiety among food-allergic adolescents and young adults. METHODS: Ninety-two patients with IgE-mediated food allergy (mean age 18.6 years) completed Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory, Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Trait Anxiety subscale of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Multivariate analyses of variance assessed differences and associations between subgroups on the scales. RESULTS: Significant differences found between alexithymia levels in coping style were explained by Avoidance strategies. 'Avoidance' had the highest contribution in explaining alexithymia, followed by trait anxiety, age, anaphylaxis and social support. Respondents with higher alexithymia use avoidance as coping strategy over and above other coping strategies such as problem-solving and positive thinking, are younger, will have experienced anaphylaxis and will have lower social support. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the specific role of affect regulation in health behaviours may constitute an important step in supporting patients to explore more adaptive strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".