Barriers and Enablers of Dietary Reintroduction Following Negative Oral Food Challenge: A Scoping Review.

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
Victoria Gibson, Amanda Ullman, Mari Takashima, Jennifer Koplin
{"title":"Barriers and Enablers of Dietary Reintroduction Following Negative Oral Food Challenge: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Victoria Gibson, Amanda Ullman, Mari Takashima, Jennifer Koplin","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.01.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>After a negative oral food challenge (OFC), it is recommended for the individual to continue to consume the historical allergen regularly. However, the proportions of families achieving sustained reintroduction, and enablers and barriers for reintroduction, are currently unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To understand the frequency and definitions of optimal food reintroduction in children and adolescents after a negative OFC, and associated barriers and enablers.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a scoping review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews of four databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from 2000 until the present. Medical Subject Headings guided our systematic search, and dual screening and extraction were performed. We applied descriptive analysis to examine key themes aligned with our research questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 2,270 articles were screened and 22 studies were included across nine countries. Peanuts were the most studied food (17 studies; 749 OFCs), followed by cow's milk (12 studies; 625 OFCs), hazelnut (four studies; 361 OFCs) and hen's egg (11 studies; 340 OFCs). What was considered to be a successful reintroduction was poorly and inconsistently described. Successful reintroduction (as defined by the authors) ranged from 14% to 86%, with failed reintroduction up to 50%. Nineteen studies (86%) examined barriers or enablers of reintroduction. Primary barriers were fear and anxiety as well as symptoms with reintroduction and aversion to or refusal of the food, whereas younger age, male sex, and guidance from clinicians were commonly reported enablers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The number of families who do not reintroduce foods after OFC remains high, and clinicians need high-quality data to support families better.</p>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2025.01.012","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: After a negative oral food challenge (OFC), it is recommended for the individual to continue to consume the historical allergen regularly. However, the proportions of families achieving sustained reintroduction, and enablers and barriers for reintroduction, are currently unclear.

Objective: To understand the frequency and definitions of optimal food reintroduction in children and adolescents after a negative OFC, and associated barriers and enablers.

Method: We conducted a scoping review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews of four databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from 2000 until the present. Medical Subject Headings guided our systematic search, and dual screening and extraction were performed. We applied descriptive analysis to examine key themes aligned with our research questions.

Results: In total, 2,270 articles were screened and 22 studies were included across nine countries. Peanuts were the most studied food (17 studies; 749 OFCs), followed by cow's milk (12 studies; 625 OFCs), hazelnut (four studies; 361 OFCs) and hen's egg (11 studies; 340 OFCs). What was considered to be a successful reintroduction was poorly and inconsistently described. Successful reintroduction (as defined by the authors) ranged from 14% to 86%, with failed reintroduction up to 50%. Nineteen studies (86%) examined barriers or enablers of reintroduction. Primary barriers were fear and anxiety as well as symptoms with reintroduction and aversion to or refusal of the food, whereas younger age, male sex, and guidance from clinicians were commonly reported enablers.

Conclusion: The number of families who do not reintroduce foods after OFC remains high, and clinicians need high-quality data to support families better.

负面口腔食物挑战后饮食重新引入的障碍和推动因素:范围审查。
背景:在口腔食物挑战阴性(OFC)后,建议个人继续定期食用历史过敏原。然而,目前尚不清楚实现持续重新引入的家庭比例,以及重新引入的促成因素和障碍。目的:了解OFC阴性后儿童和青少年最佳食物重新引入的频率和定义,以及相关的障碍和促进因素。方法:从2000年至今,我们对四个数据库(PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science)进行了范围评价,并以系统评价和荟萃分析扩展的首选报告项目为指导进行了范围评价。医学主题词指导了我们的系统检索,并进行了双重筛选和提取。描述性分析应用于检查与我们的研究问题一致的关键主题。结果:总共筛选了2270篇文章,包括来自9个国家的22项研究。花生是研究最多的食物(17项研究,749个OFCs),其次是牛奶(12项研究,625个OFCs),榛子(4项研究;361个OFCs)和鸡蛋(11项研究;340离岸金融中心)。什么被认为是成功的重新引入是糟糕的和不一致的描述。成功的重新引入(根据作者的定义)从14%到86%不等,失败的重新引入高达50%。19项研究(86%)检查了重新引入的障碍或促成因素。主要障碍是恐惧和焦虑,重新引入和厌恶或拒绝食物的症状,而通常报告的年轻,男性性别和临床医生的指导是促成因素。结论:OFC后不重新引入食物的家庭数量仍然很高,临床医生需要高质量的数据来更好地支持家庭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
9.60%
发文量
683
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: JACI: In Practice is an official publication of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). It is a companion title to The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and it aims to provide timely clinical papers, case reports, and management recommendations to clinical allergists and other physicians dealing with allergic and immunologic diseases in their practice. The mission of JACI: In Practice is to offer valid and impactful information that supports evidence-based clinical decisions in the diagnosis and management of asthma, allergies, immunologic conditions, and related diseases. This journal publishes articles on various conditions treated by allergist-immunologists, including food allergy, respiratory disorders (such as asthma, rhinitis, nasal polyps, sinusitis, cough, ABPA, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis), drug allergy, insect sting allergy, anaphylaxis, dermatologic disorders (such as atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, urticaria, angioedema, and HAE), immunodeficiency, autoinflammatory syndromes, eosinophilic disorders, and mast cell disorders. The focus of the journal is on providing cutting-edge clinical information that practitioners can use in their everyday practice or to acquire new knowledge and skills for the benefit of their patients. However, mechanistic or translational studies without immediate or near future clinical relevance, as well as animal studies, are not within the scope of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信