Multiple child food hypersensitivity impacts positive adjustment in parents

© 2017, Springer Science+Business Media New York. The physical impacts of food hypersensitivities (e.g. food allergy, food intolerance) encompass wide ranging but individually specific reactions. In contrast, the psychological impact of such illnesses extends beyond the individual who suffers the sensitivity. No Australian studies have examined the psychosocial impact of parenting a child with food hypersensitivities. The aim of this study was to ascertain differences in the psychosocial profile of parents raising a food hypersensitive child. Australian parents were targeted through three national support organisations and answered questions regarding their psychological health. Of a total of 990 respondents, 599 had children. These families comprised 1316 children aged 0–18 (M = 7.63 years) and more than half (n = 393) of these families were managing a child with a food hypersensitivity. Parents showed no differences in measured distress. In contrast, positive adjustment was higher for parents of food intolerant children and children with both food allergy and food intolerance, compared to those with non-food hypersensitive children. Moreover parents of children with combined food hypersensitivities reported a greater degree of positive change. The finding that parents of food hypersensitive children were not reporting higher levels of stress than parents without a food hypersensitive child is in stark contradiction to international studies examining both food hypersensitivity and parents of children with a chronic disease more generally. However, it appears that the complexity of the food hypersensitivity had a positive impact on adjustment with parents of children with multiple types of food hypersensitivity reporting greater positive adjustment outcomes

An internet-based intervention with brief nurse support to manage obesity in primary care (POWeR+): a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

Background The obesity epidemic has major public health consequences. Expert dietetic and behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up is effective, but resource requirements severely restrict widespread implementation in primary care, where most patients are managed. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention (POWeR+) combined with brief practice nurse support in primary care. Methods We did this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at 56 primary care practices in central and south England. Eligible adults aged 18 years or older with a BMI of 30 kg/m 2 or more (or ≥28 kg/m 2 with hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, or diabetes) registered online with POWeR+—a 24 session, web-based, weight management intervention lasting 6 months. After registration, the website automatically randomly assigned patients (1:1:1), via computer-generated random numbers, to receive evidence-based dietetic advice to swap foods for similar, but healthier, choices and increase fruit and vegetable intake, in addition to 6 monthly nurse follow-up (control group); web-based intervention and face-to-face nurse support (POWeR+Face-to-face [POWeR+F]; up to seven nurse contacts over 6 months); or web-based intervention and remote nurse support (POWeR+Remote [POWeR+R]; up to five emails or brief phone calls over 6 months). Participants and investigators were masked to group allocation at the point of randomisation; masking of participants was not possible after randomisation. The primary outcome was weight loss averaged over 12 months. We did a secondary analysis of weight to measure maintenance of 5% weight loss at months 6 and 12. We modelled the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. We did analysis by intention to treat, with multiple imputation for missing data. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN21244703. Findings Between Jan 30, 2013, and March 20, 2014, 818 participants were randomly assigned to the control group (n=279), the POWeR+F group (n=269), or the POWeR+R group (n=270). Weight loss averaged over 12 months was recorded in 666 (81%) participants. The control group lost almost 3 kg over 12 months (crude mean weight: baseline 104·38 kg [SD 21·11; n=279], 6 months 101·91 kg [19·35; n=136], 12 months 101·74 kg [19·57; n=227]). The primary imputed analysis showed that compared with the control group, patients in the POWeR+F group achieved an additional weight reduction of 1·5 kg (95% CI 0·6–2·4; p=0·001) averaged over 12 months, and patients in the POWeR+R group achieved an additional 1·3 kg (0·34–2·2; p=0·007). 21% of patients in the control group had maintained a clinically important 5% weight reduction at month 12, compared with 29% of patients in the POWeR+F group (risk ratio 1·56, 0·96–2·51; p=0·070) and 32% of patients in the POWeR+R group (1·82, 1·31–2·74; p=0·004). The incremental overall cost to the health service per kg weight lost with the POWeR+ interventions versus the control strategy was £18 (95% CI −129 to 195) for POWeR+F and –£25 (−268 to 157) for POWeR+R; the probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kg lost was 88% and 98%, respectively. No adverse events were reported. Interpretation Weight loss can be maintained in some individuals by use of novel written material with occasional brief nurse follow-up. However, more people can maintain clinically important weight reductions with a web-based behavioural program and brief remote follow-up, with no increase in health service costs. Future research should assess the extent to which clinically important weight loss can be maintained beyond 1 year. Funding Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Defining terms used for animals working in support roles for people with support needs

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed