“It’s a Permanent Struggle to Manage It Really”: Psychological Burden and Coping Strategies of Adults Living With Food Allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food allergy (FA) is a potentially life-threatening condition which is associated with poor quality of life and psychological distress in patients and caregivers. Although FA is often seen as a condition that affects children, increasing numbers of adults have FA, either as a condition they have grown up with or they were diagnosed as an adult. No recent research has explored the lived experiences of adults with FA and how they manage this condition. In response, this study aimed to qualitatively assess the current lived experiences of adults in the UK with FA, and how they manage this condition. Adults aged 18 years or over, with medically diagnosed FA, living in the UK were recruited through patient organisations and interviewed ( n = 22). Data were analysed using template analysis. Two main themes were identified from the data. The first theme explores the influence of FA on the participants’ lives, in particular on their ‘psychological’ and ‘social’ well-being. The second theme unpacks the strategies participants employed to cope with and manage their FA, specifically participants’ deployment of ‘avoidance’, ‘control’, ‘self-monitoring’, and ‘adaptation’ to manage their FA and their anxieties around it. Clearly, FA has a profound, ongoing effect on the lives of adults. Few adults in this study were able to access any support to manage their FA and accompanying anxieties. Ways in which effective support can be made available to adults with FA must be identified and implemented.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".