A brief psychological intervention for mothers of children with food allergy can change risk perception and reduce anxiety: Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mothers of children with food allergy have increased anxiety, which may be influenced by healthcare professionals' communication of risk. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a brief psychological intervention for reducing anxiety in mothers of children with food allergy. METHODS: Two hundred mothers of children with food allergy were recruited from allergy clinics. A computer-generated randomization list was used to allocate participants to a single-session cognitive behavioural therapy intervention including a risk communication module, or standard care. Anxiety and risk perception were assessed at 6 weeks and 1 year. Primary outcome was state anxiety at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included state anxiety at 1 year, risk perception at 6 weeks and 1 year, and salivary cortisol response to a simulated anaphylaxis scenario at 1 year. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in the primary outcome state anxiety at 6 weeks, with mean 31.9 (SD 10.2) intervention, 34.0 (10.2) control; mean difference 2.1 (95% CI -0.9, 5.0; P=.17). There was significantly reduced state anxiety at 6 weeks in the intervention group, in the subgroup of participants with moderate/high anxiety at enrolment (103/200, 52%), with mean 33.0 (SD 9.3) intervention, 37.8 (SD 10.0) control; mean difference 4.8 (95% CI 0.9, 8.7; P=.016; Cohen's d effect size 0.50). The psychological intervention also reduced risk perception and salivary cortisol response (P=.032; effect size 0.36). CONCLUSION: We found evidence that a brief psychological intervention which incorporates accurate risk information may impact on anxiety, risk perception and physiological stress response in mothers of children with food allergy.

Patients' ability to treat anaphylaxis using adrenaline autoinjectors: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous work has shown patients commonly misuse adrenaline autoinjectors (AAI). It is unclear whether this is due to inadequate training, or poor device design. We undertook a prospective randomized controlled trial to evaluate ability to administer adrenaline using different AAI devices. METHODS: We allocated mothers of food-allergic children prescribed an AAI for the first time to Anapen or EpiPen using a computer-generated randomization list, with optimal training according to manufacturer's instructions. After one year, participants were randomly allocated a new device (EpiPen, Anapen, new EpiPen, JEXT or Auvi-Q), without device-specific training. We assessed ability to deliver adrenaline using their AAI in a simulated anaphylaxis scenario six weeks and one year after initial training, and following device switch. Primary outcome was successful adrenaline administration at six weeks, assessed by an independent expert. Secondary outcomes were success at one year, success after switching device, and adverse events. RESULTS: We randomized 158 participants. At six weeks, 30 of 71 (42%) participants allocated to Anapen and 31 of 73 (43%) participants allocated to EpiPen were successful - RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.68-1.46). Success rates at one year were also similar, but digital injection was more common at one year with EpiPen (8/59, 14%) than Anapen (0/51, 0%, P = 0.007). When switched to a new device without specific training, success rates were higher with Auvi-Q (26/28, 93%) than other devices (39/80, 49%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AAI device design is a major determinant of successful adrenaline administration. Success rates were low with several devices, but were high using the audio-prompt device Auvi-Q.