Parental confidence in managing food allergy:development of the Food Allergy Self-Efficacy Scale for parents (FASE-P)

Background: Food allergy is often a life-long condition that requires constant vigilance in order to prevent accidental exposure and avoid potentially life-threatening symptoms. Parents’ confidence in managing their child’s food allergy may relate to the poor quality of life anxiety and worry reported by parents of food allergic children. Objective: The aim of the current study was to develop and validate the first scale to measure parental confidence (self-efficacy) in managing food allergy in their child. Methods: The Food Allergy Self-Efficacy Scale for Parents (FASE-P) was developed through interviews with 53 parents, consultation of the literature and experts in the area. The FASE-P was then completed by 434 parents of food allergic children from a general population sample in addition to the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), the Food Allergy Quality of Life Parental Burden Scale (FAQL-PB), the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) and the Food Allergy Impact Measure (FAIM). A total of 250 parents completed the re-test of the FASE-P. Results: Factor and reliability analysis resulted in a 21 item scale with 5 sub-scales. The overall scale and sub-scales has good to excellent internal consistency (α’s of 0.63-0.89) and the scale is stable over time. There were low to moderate significant correlations with the GSES, FAIM and GHQ12 and strong correlations with the FAQL-PB, with better parental confidence relating to better general self-efficacy, better quality of life and better mental health in the parent. Poorer self-efficacy was related to egg and milk allergy; self-efficacy was not related to severity of allergy. Conclusions and clinical relevance: The FASE-P is a reliable and valid scale for use with parents from a general population. Its application within clinical settings could aid provision of advice and improve targeted interventions by identifying areas where parents have less confidence in managing their child’s food allergy

The effectiveness of an intervention in increasing community health clinician provision of preventive care: a study protocol of a non-randomised, multiple-baseline trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The primary behavioural risks for the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries are tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity. Evidence, guidelines and policies support routine clinician delivery of care to prevent these risks within primary care settings. Despite the potential afforded by community health services for the delivery of such preventive care, the limited evidence available suggests it is provided at suboptimal levels. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic practice change intervention in increasing clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health services.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multiple baseline study will be conducted involving all 56 community health facilities in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. The facilities will be allocated to one of three administratively-defined groups. A 12 month practice change intervention will be implemented in all facilities in each group to facilitate clinician risk assessment of eligible clients, and clinician provision of brief advice and referral to those identified as being 'at risk'. The intervention will be implemented in a non-random sequence across the three facility groups. Repeated, cross-sectional measurement of clinician provision of preventive care for four individual risks (smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity) will occur continuously for all three facility groups for 54 months via telephone interviews. The interviews will be conducted with randomly selected clients who have visited a community health facility in the last two weeks. Data collection will commence 12 months prior to the implementation of the intervention in the first group, and continue for six months following the completion of the intervention in the last group. As a secondary source of data, telephone interviews will be undertaken prior to and following the intervention with randomly selected samples of clinicians from each facility group to assess the reported provision of preventive care, and the acceptability of the practice change intervention and implementation.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will provide novel evidence regarding the ability to increase clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health facilities.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian Clinical Trials Registry <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12611001284954.aspx">ACTRN12611001284954</a></p> <p>Universal Trial Number (UTN)</p> <p>U1111-1126-3465</p

Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE): using mixed methods (systematic reviews, prospective cohort, case study, consensus and psychometrics) to identify patient and organisational risk, develop a risk assessment tool and patient-reported outcome Quality of Life and Health Utility measures

Background: The Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE) consisted of two themes. Theme 1 focused on improving our understanding of individuals’ and organisational risk factors and on improving the quality of risk assessments (work packages 1–3) and theme 2 focused on developing patient-reported outcome measures (work packages 4 and 5). Methods: The programme comprised 21 individual pieces of work. Pain: (1) multicentre pain prevalence study in acute hospitals, (2) multicentre pain prevalence study in community localities incorporating (3) a comparison of case-finding methods, and (4) multicentre, prospective cohort study. Severe pressure ulcers: (5) retrospective case study, (6) patient involvement workshop with the Pressure Ulcer Research Service User Network for the UK (PURSUN UK) and (7) development of root cause analysis methodology. Risk assessment: (8) systematic review, (9) consensus study, (10) conceptual framework development and theoretical causal pathway, (11) design and pretesting of draft Risk Assessment Framework and (12) field test to assess reliability, validity, data completeness and clinical usability. Quality of life: (13) conceptual framework development (systematic review, patient interviews), (14 and 15) provisional instrument development, with items generated from patient interviews [from (1) above] two systematic reviews and experts, (16) pretesting of the provisional Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument using mixed methods, (17) field test 1 including (18) optimal mode of administration substudy and item reduction with testing of scale formation, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity, and (19) field test 2 – final psychometric evaluation to test scale targeting, item response categories, item fit, response bias, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity. Cost–utility: (20) time trade-off task valuations of health states derived from selected PU-QOL items, and (21) validation of the items selected and psychometric properties of the new Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life Utility Index (PUQOL-UI). Key findings:Pain: prevalence studies – hospital and community patients experience both pressure area-related and pressure ulcer pain; pain cohort study – indicates that pain is independently predictive of category 2 (and above) pressure ulcer development. Severe pressure ulcers: these were more likely to develop in contexts in which clinicians failed to listen to patients/carers or recognise/respond to high risk or the presence of an existing pressure ulcer and services were not effectively co-ordinated; service users found the interactive workshop format valuable; including novel components (interviews with patients and carers) in root cause analysis improves the quality of the insights captured. Risk assessment: we developed a Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Framework, the PURPOSE-T, incorporating the Minimum Data Set, a screening stage, a full assessment stage, use of colour to support decision-making, and decision pathways that make a clear distinction between patients with an existing pressure ulcer(s) (or scarring from previous ulcers) who require secondary prevention and treatment and those at risk who require primary prevention (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/accesspurposet). Quality of life: the final PU-QOL instrument consists of 10 scales to measure pain, exudate, odour, sleep, vitality, mobility/movement, daily activities, emotional well-being, self-consciousness and appearance, and participation (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ques). Cost–utility: seven items were selected from the PU-QOL instrument for inclusion in the PUQOL-UI (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ui); secondary study analysis indicated that item selection for the PUQOL-UI was appropriate and that the index was acceptable to patients and had adequate levels of validity. Conclusions: The PURPOSE programme has provided important insights for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and involvement of service users in research and development, with implications for patient and public involvement, clinical practice, quality/safety/health service management and research including replication of the pain risk factor study, work exploring ‘best practice’ settings, the impact of including skin status as an indicator for escalation of preventative interventions, further psychometric evaluation of PU-QOL and PUQOL-UI the measurement of ‘disease attribution.’ Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme

sj-xlsx-7-jop-10.1177_02698811221124792 – Supplemental material for Cannabidiol in clinical and preclinical anxiety research. A systematic review into concentration–effect relations using the IB-de-risk tool

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-7-jop-10.1177_02698811221124792 for Cannabidiol in clinical and preclinical anxiety research. A systematic review into concentration–effect relations using the IB-de-risk tool by Caroline MB Kwee, Joop MA van Gerven, Fleur LP Bongaerts, Danielle C Cath, Gabriël Jacobs, Johanna MP Baas and Lucianne Groenink in Journal of Psychopharmacolog