Global Availability and Uptake of Psychological Services for Adults with Food Allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background . Food allergy (FA) is associated with poor quality of life and high levels of psychological distress. Psychological support is therefore extremely important but is not always available. As part of the Global Access to Psychological Services for Food Allergy (GAPS) Study, we aimed to assess distress and use of psychological services for adults with food allergy. Methods . Participants (n=1329 adults with FA) from >20 countries were recruited through patient organisations, social media adverts and online survey panels to complete an online survey. Surveys were offered in six languages. Results . A total of 67.7% of adults reported they had experienced FA-related psychological distress with the biggest issue being anxiety about having an allergic reaction (64.1%). Only 19.4% had been assessed for FA-related psychological distress; 22.9% had seen a mental health professional for treatment for their FA-related distress. There were significant differences across countries for levels of distress, screening for distress, seeing a mental health professional and being diagnosed with a FA-related mental health disorder (all p<0.001). The UK and Brazil had the highest number of adults reporting distress. The biggest barriers to seeing a mental health professional were cost, lack of insurance coverage, failure to provide a referral, and lack of practitioner in the area. Conclusions . FA-related distress is common in adults. Few have accessed the psychological care and support they need and there is significant variability across countries. Clinicians should consider routine assessment of adults for distress and easily accessible resources are needed to help support adult patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".