4.2 Article

Factors impacting parental burden in food-allergic children

Journal

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
Volume 51, Issue 7, Pages 696-698

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jpc.12794

Keywords

adrenaline auto injector; food allergy; parental burden; quality of life

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimThis study aims to determine factors impacting the parental burden in immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food-allergic children (FAC), focusing on attitudes towards adrenaline autoinjectors (AAIs). MethodsQuestionnaires were sent to parents of diagnosed IgE-mediated FAC attending follow-up allergy clinic appointments at two Sydney hospitals in May-September 2013. The questionnaires ascertained parental attitudes, confidence and knowledge regarding AAIs and included the validated, Food Allergy Quality of Life-Parental Burden (FAQL-PB) questionnaire. ResultsThe response rate was 68%. Of FAC, 62% were male aged 1-17 years (median 6.0). There was a high proportion of children with multiple food allergies (52% allergic to >2 foods), coexistant eczema (85%) and asthma (54%). Sixty-three per cent reported a past history of anaphylaxis and 42% reported reactions in the last 6 months. AAI had been prescribed for 84%. FAC with a history of anaphylaxis were more likely to have had an AAI prescribed (P < 0.0001). There was no difference in FAQL-PB mean scores with age or AAI prescription status. The PB score was greater if the parent had administered the AAI (P = 0.02) and where the child was allergic to >2 foods (P < 0.0001).The Ninety per cent of parents reported that the AAI increased or did not change the child's quality of life, the family or FACs freedom. Three per cent of parents whose FAC children were prescribed an AAI reported increased stress related to AAI prescription. ConclusionSeverity of food allergy, number of food allergens and past anaphylaxis rather than prescription of an AAI appear to be major influences on parental burden.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available