Global availability and uptake of psychological services for adults, caregivers and children with food allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food allergy (FA) is associated with poor health-related quality of life and high levels of psychological distress. Psychological support is extremely important but not always available. As part of the Global Access to Psychological Services for Food Allergy (GAPS) study, we aimed to assess psychological distress and service use among adults, caregivers and children with FA in a global survey. METHODS: Participants (n = 1329 adults with FA; n = 1907 caregivers of children with FA) from >20 countries were recruited through patient organisations, social media advertisements and online survey panels to complete an online survey. Surveys were available in six languages. RESULTS: A total of 67.7% of adults and 77.2% of caregivers reported direct experience, and 51.6% of caregivers said their child had experienced FA-related psychological distress. The most commonly reported issue was anxiety about having an allergic reaction. Less than 20% had been assessed for FA-related psychological 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 < .001). The United Kingdom, Australia and Brazil had the highest number of participants reporting distress. The most commonly reported barrier to seeing a mental health professional was cost. CONCLUSIONS: FA-related distress is common across countries, but with substantial country-to-country variability. Allergy providers are encouraged to routinely assess families for psychological distress and provide access to appropriate mental health resources. Development and implementation of evidence-based, patient-informed accessible, affordable FA interventions in multiple languages is urgently needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".