It takes a village: perceptions of Winnipeg parents, students, teachers and school staff regarding the impact of food allergy on school-age students and their families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The entire school community contributes to the safety of students with food allergy. We sought to determine the food allergy perceptions and education needs of parents, students and school staff, with the goal of enhancing food allergy education in schools. METHODS: Questionnaire Links to their parent/caregiver contact list and school staff. We compared anonymous responses of parents of children with and without food allergy, students with and without food allergy, and parents and school staff using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Participants included 561 parents of school-age children (ages 7-12 years, 19% with food allergy), 61 students (23% with food allergy), and 203 school staff (62% teachers, 88% with experience managing food allergies in the classroom). Parents of children with and without food allergy considered food allergy when sending food to school (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.39). More parents of children with food allergy thought that greater information and awareness about food allergy was needed (74% vs. 44%, p < 0.0001). Students with food allergy were most interested (100%) in having other students learn not to bully and how to help during a reaction. Students without food allergy were most interested in learning how to prevent a reaction (70%). Fewer parents than school staff thought that food allergies in the classroom impacted teachers' time (2.1% vs. 21%, p < 0.0001) and that teachers knew how to treat allergic reactions to foods (34% vs. 94%, p < 0.0001). More parents than school staff thought that banning foods from classrooms kept allergic students safe (65% vs. 34%, p = 0.006) and that having a Food Allergy Educator speak at school would be helpful (99% vs. 67%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Food allergy education is necessary for the entire school community and should include parents of school-aged children with and without food allergy, students with and without food allergy, and teachers and school staff. These members of the school community recognized their own and others' needs for increased food allergy education and awareness in the school setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".