loading page

Global Availability and Uptake of Psychological Services for Adults with Food Allergy
  • +10
  • Rebecca Knibb,
  • Screti C,
  • Helen Brough,
  • Ruchi Gupta,
  • L. Herbert,
  • Christina Jones,
  • Lombard L,
  • Mary Jane Marchisotto,
  • Jennifer Protudjer,
  • Roleston C,
  • Alexandra Santos,
  • Brian Vickery,
  • Christopher Warren
Rebecca Knibb
Aston University

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Screti C
Aston University
Author Profile
Helen Brough
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Author Profile
Ruchi Gupta
Ann and Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago
Author Profile
L. Herbert
Children's National Hospital
Author Profile
Christina Jones
University of Surrey Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences
Author Profile
Lombard L
Northwestern University
Author Profile
Mary Jane Marchisotto
MJM Advisory
Author Profile
Jennifer Protudjer
University of Manitoba Department of Pediatrics and Child Health
Author Profile
Roleston C
University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences
Author Profile
Alexandra Santos
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Author Profile
Brian Vickery
Emory University Department of Medicine
Author Profile
Christopher Warren
Northwestern University
Author Profile

Abstract

Background. Food allergy (FA) is associated with poor quality of life and high levels of psychological distress. Psychological support is therefore extremely important but is not always available. As part of the Global Access to Psychological Services for Food Allergy (GAPS) Study, we aimed to assess distress and use of psychological services for adults with food allergy. Methods. Participants (n=1329 adults with FA) from >20 countries were recruited through patient organisations, social media adverts and online survey panels to complete an online survey. Surveys were offered in six languages. Results. A total of 67.7% of adults reported they had experienced FA-related psychological distress with the biggest issue being anxiety about having an allergic reaction (64.1%). Only 19.4% had been assessed for FA-related psychological distress; 22.9% had seen a mental health professional for treatment for their FA-related distress. There were significant differences across countries for levels of distress, screening for distress, seeing a mental health professional and being diagnosed with a FA-related mental health disorder (all p<0.001). The UK and Brazil had the highest number of adults reporting distress. The biggest barriers to seeing a mental health professional were cost, lack of insurance coverage, failure to provide a referral, and lack of practitioner in the area. Conclusions. FA-related distress is common in adults. Few have accessed the psychological care and support they need and there is significant variability across countries. Clinicians should consider routine assessment of adults for distress and easily accessible resources are needed to help support adult patients.