An online, peer-mentored food allergy education program improves children’s and parents’ confidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with food allergy, and their families experience substantial burdens because of efforts necessary to minimize the risk of anaphylaxis. To this end, peer-to-peer education is paramount. Food Allergy Canada offers an online, peer-to-peer mentoring program. However, the impact of this program has not previously been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To determine if Allergy Pals, an online, peer-to-peer mentoring program, for children aged 7-11 years, increased child and parental food allergy competency, and confidence. Our secondary aim was to qualitatively describe the experiences of the program. METHODS: From May 2020-May 2021, children and their parents were invited to participate in an online, anonymous survey about Allergy Pals, at pre-program, and post-program. Primary outcomes, which were described and compared using chi2 or t-tests, as appropriate for the respective variables, included food allergy competence (epinephrine carriage, signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis) and food allergy confidence (e.g. comfort asking other for food allergy-related support). Secondary outcomes included child and parent perceptions of the program, which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Overall, 17 children completed the pre-program, and 11 completed the post-program survey. Corresponding numbers for parents were 25 and 23. Food allergy competence was high pre-program, and remained so post-program. Food allergy confidence improved from pre-program to post-program. E.g. Children tended to feel less left out (5/12, 41.7%; 3/10; 30.0%, respectively), a finding that was reflected also in parents' scores. Themes identified for child and parent perceptions further supported improved food allergy confidence. CONCLUSION: Although food allergy competence was high pre-program, Allergy Pals improved food allergy confidence.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".