Parental self-efficacy in managing food allergy and mental health predicts food allergy related quality of life

BACKGROUND: Food allergy has been shown to have a significant impact on quality of life (QoL) and can be difficult to manage in order to avoid potentially life threatening reactions. Parental self-efficacy (confidence) in managing food allergy for their child might explain variations in QoL. This study aimed to examine whether self-efficacy in parents of food allergic children was a good predictor of QoL of the family. METHODS: Parents of children with clinically diagnosed food allergy completed the Food Allergy Self-Efficacy Scale for Parents (FASE-P), the Food Allergy Quality of Life Parental Burden Scale (FAQL-PB), the GHQ-12 (to measure mental health) and the Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM), which measures perceived likelihood of a severe allergic reaction. RESULTS: A total of 434 parents took part. Greater parental QoL was significantly related to greater self-efficacy for food allergy management, better mental health, lower perceived likelihood of a severe reaction, older age in parent and child and fewer number of allergies (all p<0.05). Food allergy self-efficacy explained more of the variance in QoL than any other variable and self-efficacy related to management of social activities and precaution and prevention of an allergic reaction appeared to be the most important aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Parental self-efficacy in management of a child's food allergy is important and is associated with better parental QoL. It would be useful to measure self-efficacy at visits to allergy clinic in order to focus support; interventions to improve self-efficacy in parents of food allergic children should be explored. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Perceptions of self-testing for chlamydia:understanding and predicting self-test use

Background: Self-testing technology allows people to test themselves for chlamydia without professional support. This may result in reassurance and wider access to chlamydia testing, but anxiety could occur on receipt of positive results. This study aimed to identify factors important in understanding self-testing for chlamydia outside formal screening contexts, to explore the potential impacts of self-testing on individuals, and to identify theoretical constructs to form a Framework for future research and intervention development. Methods: Eighteen university students participated in semi-structured interviews; eleven had self-tested for chlamydia. Data were analysed thematically using a Framework approach. Results: Perceived benefits of self-testing included its being convenient, anonymous and not requiring physical examination. There was concern about test accuracy and some participants lacked confidence in using vulvo-vaginal swabs. While some participants expressed concern about the absence of professional support, all said they would seek help on receiving a positive result. Factors identified in Protection Motivation Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, such as response efficacy and self-efficacy, were found to be highly salient to participants in thinking about self-testing. Conclusions: These exploratory findings suggest that self-testing independently of formal health care systems may no more negatively impact people than being tested by health care professionals. Participants’ perceptions about self-testing behaviour were consistent with psychological theories. Findings suggest that interventions which increase confidence in using self-tests and that provide reassurance of test accuracy may increase self-test intentions.