MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383535140 · doi:10.3390/children10071175

Food Allergy Education and Management in Early Learning and Childcare Centres: A Scoping Review on Current Practices and Gaps

2023· review· en· W4383535140 on OpenAlexafffund
Mae Jhelene L. Santos, Kaitlyn A. Merrill, Moshe Ben‐Shoshan, Jennifer Gerdts, Don Giesbrecht, Elana Lavine, Susan Prentice, Julia Upton, Jennifer L. P. Protudjer

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenCanadian Wildlife FederationAllerGenMcGill University Health CentreGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychological interventionMedicineThematic analysisMEDLINEPsychologyMedical educationFamily medicineNursingQualitative researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anaphylaxis has occurred in preschools/schools yet there are no consistent food allergy (FA) management practices in early learning and childcare centres (ELCC) across jurisdictions. Presently, there are no reviews that have synthesized FA-related knowledge and management practices within ELCC. We aimed to perform a scoping review of FA management in ELCC, and report on perceived gaps or barriers. A PRISMA-ScR-guided search was conducted for North American, European and Australian articles in English/French in the OVID-MedLine, Scopus, and PsycInfo databases. Two independent reviewers screened the titles/abstracts of 2010 articles and full-text screened 77 articles; 15 of which were specifically related to ELCC. If the two reviewers could not agree to the relevance of a given study, a third reviewer provided guidance. This third reviewer also screened French articles. Thematic and descriptive reports of the studies were presented. We reported solely on pre-Coronavirus Disease pandemic ELCC studies. We included ten articles in this review, which provide evidence that ELCC staff have variable baseline knowledge, comprehension, experience, and practices in place to manage FA. ELCC staff also have limited FA-related training and experience regarding administration of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAI). Emergency Anaphylaxis Plans (EAP) were described in four studies. One study reported the parental influence on the site's food purchasing and FA management. Three studies provided educational interventions, which demonstrated increased and sustained FA-related knowledge and confidence post-intervention. Participants deemed the training beneficial and desired annual training and more FA resources to be available. Across jurisdictions, ELCC staff have provided care and administered EAI in emergencies, but training remained variable. Communication and care planning amongst ELCC staff, and parents, is crucial. Annual education, available EAI and EAPs are tools necessary for effectively managing emergencies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0200.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207