Food‐allergy‐specific anxiety and distress in parents of children with food allergy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenting a child with food allergy (FA) can lead to impaired quality of life and family functioning. Anxiety is a critical component of FA-associated distress and a potential target for therapeutic intervention. This systematic review aimed to clarify the concept of FA-specific anxiety (FAA) and its antecedents, consequences, and correlates and to determine the extent to which existing FA-specific outcome measures capture symptoms of parental distress and FAA. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies examining distress or anxiety in parents of children with FA through August 2020. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020208316) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Ninety-eight studies were included in the final narrative synthesis. Most participants were mothers, and reporting of demographic data was limited. Parents identified anxiety as the most burdensome form of FA-specific emotional distress. Several allergy-related factors as well as medical and psychosocial interventions were associated with reduced parental anxiety and distress. However, affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions of FAA were only partially addressed by existing measures for general anxiety symptoms and FA-specific parental factors. CONCLUSIONS: FAA contributes to distress and functional impairment among parents of children with FA. Current FA-specific parent measures fail to adequately capture dimensions of FAA, suggesting that further work is needed to improve the assessment and monitoring of FAA and its impacts. Characterization of this construct represents an initial step in developing standardized methods for assessing and monitoring FAA in clinical populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".