Use assessment of self-administered epinephrine among food-allergic children and pediatricians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Food allergy is a common cause of anaphylaxis, and early treatment with epinephrine can be life-saving. We sought to determine the ability of families with food allergic children and pediatricians to properly use self-injectable epinephrine. METHODS: We enrolled families of consecutive, food-allergic pediatric patients newly referred to our allergy practice but previously prescribed epinephrine and a sampling of pediatricians. Parents or teenage patients answered a structured questionnaire concerning use of self-injectable epinephrine and demonstrated the use of devices with which they were familiar. Demonstrations were scored in a standard manner. RESULTS: One hundred one families of food-allergic children (mean age of patients, 6.4 years) were enrolled. Self-injectable epinephrine was prescribed (mean of 2.7 years previously) primarily by pediatricians (n = 46) and allergists (n = 49). Patients were prescribed EpiPen (n = 93), EpiE-Z Pen (n = 11), and Ana-Kit (n = 3). Eighty-six percent of the families responded that they had the device with them "at all times," but only 71% of this group had epinephrine at the visit. Among those with the epinephrine, 10% had devices beyond the labeled expiration date. Thus, only 55% of the 101 families had unexpired epinephrine on-hand at the time of the survey. Among children in school, 77% had the medication available in school, and 81% stated that the school knew the indications for administration. Only 32% of the participants correctly demonstrated the use of the device. Twenty-nine attending pediatricians were enrolled (mean 14 yrs in practice; mean 4 epinephrine prescriptions/year). Familiarity with the devices was as follows: EpiPen (86%), EpiE-Z Pen (17%) and Ana-Kit (7%). Only 24% generally gave patients written materials concerning indications. Overall, 18% were familiar with and able to demonstrate correct use of at least 1 device (21% correctly demonstrated Epi-Pen). Seventeen pediatric residents were enrolled; 65% were familiar with the EpiPen; 36% demonstrated it correctly and only 1 resident was familiar with Ana-Kit. CONCLUSIONS: Many parents of severely food-allergic children, and food-allergic teenagers cannot correctly administer their self-injectable epinephrine and may not have the medication readily available. Pediatricians are not familiar with these devices and may fail to review their use with patients. Improved patient and physician education is needed to ensure proper use of this life-saving medication.

The impact of a clinic-based literacy intervention on language development in inner-city preschool children.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a clinic-based literacy intervention on the language development of preschool children. METHODS: A convenience sample of families presenting to 2 urban pediatric clinics for well-child care met the following criteria: the family was Latino or black and English- or Spanish-speaking; the child was 2 to 5.9 years old, with no neurodevelopmental disability, at a gestational age of 34 weeks or more, and not attending kindergarten. Participants at the first clinic (intervention group) were exposed to a literacy support program, based on Reach Out and Read (ROR), during the previous 3 years. At the second clinic (comparison group), a similar program started 3 months before the study. Parent-child reading activities were measured using the READ Subscale of the StimQ. Language development was measured using the One-Word Expressive and Receptive Picture Vocabulary Tests, and was performed in the child's primary language. RESULTS: A total of 122 study participants (49 interventions and 73 comparisons) met inclusion criteria and completed all measures. Intervention and comparison families were similar for most sociodemographic variables. Intervention families reported reading together with their children approximately 1 more day per week. Intensity of exposure to ROR (measured by total number of contacts with the program) was associated with increased parent-child reading activities, as measured by the StimQ-Read Subscale (r = 0.20). Intervention children had higher receptive language (mean: 94.5 vs 84.8) and expressive language (mean: 84.3 vs 81.6). After adjusting for potential confounders in a multiple regression analysis, intervention status was associated with an 8.6-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.3, 14.0) in receptive language (semipartial correlation [SR]coefficient = 0.27), and a 4.3-point increase (95% CI: 0.04, 8.6) in expressive language (SR = 0.17). In a similar multiple regression, each contact with ROR was associated with an adjusted mean 0.4-point increase (95% CI: 0.1, 0.6) in receptive score, and an adjusted mean 0.21-point increase (95% CI: 0. 02, 0.4) in expressive score. CONCLUSIONS: ROR is an important intervention, promoting parental literacy support and enhancing language development in impoverished preschool children. Integration of literacy promoting interventions such as these into routine pediatric health care for underserved populations can be recommended.