Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Parent perspectives on school food allergy policy

BMC Pediatrics201818:164

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1135-6

Received: 3 November 2017

Accepted: 30 April 2018

Published: 12 May 2018

Abstract

Background

Food allergy affects up to 8% of children in the U.S. There is minimal research to date on food allergy policies that are currently in place in schools and the opinions of parents of children with food allergy on the effectiveness of or need for these policies.

Methods

An electronic survey was disseminated to parents of children with food allergy. Frequencies were calculated to describe respondent characteristics and responses. Chi-square tests were performed to examine associations between school and child characteristics and outcomes.

Results

Of the 289 parent respondents, 27.4% were unsure or felt school was unsafe for their child with food allergy. While the majority felt that the polices in their child’s school were helpful, most also believed that implementation of additional polices was necessary, including availability of stock epinephrine (94.2%), lunch menus with allergen information (86%), ingredient labels on food items (81%), and direct food allergy education for students (86%). There were significant differences in school food allergy policy depending on the age of the student body, private versus public school, and geographic location.

Conclusions

While most schools reportedly have one or more food allergy policies in place, many parents have concerns over the safety of their child at school and feel that additional policies are necessary to improve the safety of the school environment for children with food allergy. The availability of stock epinephrine, improved allergen labeling of food and menus and increased food allergy education may be key policy areas on which to focus.

Keywords

  • Anaphylaxis
  • Food allergy
  • School
  • Policy
  • Epinephrine
  • Food labeling

Background

Schools must practice effective anaphylaxis prevention and preparedness strategies as increasing prevalence rates of childhood food allergy have created a significant public health issue. It is estimated that nearly 6 million U.S. children, or 8%, now have some form of IgE-mediated food allergy, with 30% of food allergic children reporting multiple food allergies [1, 2]. Despite ongoing research into potential therapeutic options, current management is based on strict avoidance of known food allergens and appropriate response to accidental exposures [3]. Although fatalities from food allergic reactions in school are rare, food is often ubiquitous throughout the school setting, thus creating risks for accidental exposures in schools that may have varying levels of anaphylaxis preparedness. Since most children spend up to half their waking hours at school, management of food allergy in the school setting is an important issue.

The U.S. Department of Education has not established policy recommendations related to food allergy. While voluntary guidelines for the management of food allergy in schools have been developed by the Center for Disease Control, there remains significant heterogeneity in school preparedness for food allergic reactions and there is no consensus on which preventative policies work best for improving food allergy safety in schools [4, 5]. The vast majority of schools have at least one student with food allergy, and one survey showed that 67% of schools had made at least one accommodation for children with food allergy (peanut-free tables, peanut ban in classrooms, or alternative meals) [6]. However, approximately 18% of children with food allergies have experienced an allergic reaction while at school and over 10% of 5683 schools reported at least one anaphylactic event during the 2013-2014 academic year [69]. Therefore, parents and students may have significant concerns regarding the potential for food-induced allergic reactions at school as well as the ability of school staff to effectively manage anaphylaxis.

To date, little research has been conducted examining current food allergy policies in US school systems and even less on the opinions of parents of children with food allergy regarding those policies and their utility. Therefore, the goal of this study was to survey parents of children with food allergy to determine the food allergy policies that they are aware of in their child’s school and their opinion on the effectiveness of or need for these policies. With a better understanding of school policies, stronger recommendations for food allergy management in schools may be made to promote a safe and conducive learning environment for all children.

Methods

An initial survey was developed with the goal of understanding school policies related to food allergy. The research domains were selected based on a review of relevant literature and included family demographics (age, gender, race, grade, allergic reaction experience, etc.), awareness of current school food allergy policies; acceptability, effectiveness, and feasibility of current policies; and desired school food allergy policies. Following initial survey development, cognitive interviews were conducted with a subset of parents (n = 5) recruited through food allergy support groups in order to refine the survey questions. The final survey tool consisted of 105 multiple-part, multiple-choice, and open-ended response questions with skip logic, which required approximately 10 min to complete. It is available upon request. Parents were asked to respond for only one of their children with food allergy. Severe allergic reaction was not defined for respondents. Respondents who reported that a given policy was in place at their child’s school were asked if the policy was helpful, while those who reported that a given policy was not in place or were unsure were asked if they felt that the policy was needed. No incentive was offered for participation in the study. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture, Vanderbilt University) hosted at Northwestern University was used to administer the online survey [10].

Selection of subjects

Parents were recruited for participation through the Allergy and Asthma Network (AAN) and Mothers of Children Having Allergies (MOCHA) listservs. The target population included parents of children with food allergies in grades 1-12. Eligible participants were invited to participate via an email containing a link to complete the survey. Consent was obtained before any participant could access the survey. The process of obtaining informed consent followed all applicable requirements. The survey was conducted from August 2016 through January 2017. No identifying information was collected and all responses were kept confidential on secure servers at Northwestern University. The study was deemed exempt by Northwestern University’s Institutional Review Board.

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed in Stata 14.0 statistical software (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). Frequencies were calculated to describe respondent characteristics and responses. Responses to the policy questions were dichotomized into two categories: yes and no/unsure. Missing responses were coded with “no/unsure.” For demographic variables, missing variables were coded as “other” or were included in a separate category. To examine associations between school and respondent characteristics and outcomes, chi-square tests were performed.

Results

Survey respondents

Of 290 completed surveys, one was eliminated due to the child not meeting grade level eligibility criteria, resulting in a final sample of 289 responses included in the final analyses. The majority of respondents were mothers (91.3%), had a household income of more than $100,000 (55.4%), and held a college degree or higher (85.5%) (Table 1). Most respondents lived in the Northeast (35.3%) or Midwest (36.3%). The majority of children were male (63.4%) and Caucasian (77.9%). 70% of the children were in elementary grades (grades 1-5), and most attended a public school (78.6%). The most common food allergens were peanut (76.1%) and tree nuts (77.2%) and the most common comorbid conditions were allergic rhinitis (78.9%), asthma (55.7%), and atopic dermatitis (49.8%). While 81% of respondents reported that their child had experienced at least one severe reaction in their lifetime, 82% reported that their child had never experienced a severe reaction in the school setting.
Table 1

Respondent Demographics

Characteristic

Frequency, N (%)

Total Number of Respondents

289

Child’s gender

 Male

176 (63.4)

 Female

99 (34.3)

 Other/Would not like to report/Missing (missing = 12)

14 (4.8)

Child’s grade

 Elementary (1-5)

182 (70.0)

 Middle (6-8)

46 (15.9)

 High school (9-12)

35 (12.1)

 Missing

26 (9.0)

Type of school

 Public

227 (78.6)

 Private

16 (5.5)

 Religious School

29 (10.0)

 Other

17 (5.9)

How many severe reactions has your child had in his or her lifetime

 0

55 (19.0)

 1

88 (30.5)

  > 1

146 (50.5)

How many severe reactions has your child had in school in his or her lifetime

 0

237 (82.0)

 1

35 (12.1)

  > 1

17 (5.9)

How many severe reactions has your child experienced in school in the past year

 0

265 (91.7)

 1

19 (6.6)

  > 1

5 (1.7)

To which foods is your child allergic

 Peanut

220 (76.1)

 Tree nut

223 (77.2)

 Fin fish

21 (7.3)

 Shellfish

41 (14.2)

 Milk

106 (36.7)

 Egg

97 (33.56

 Soy

27 (9.3)

 Wheat

26 (9.0)

 Sesame

55 (19.0)

 Other

69 (23.9)

Ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino)

 Yes

12 (4.2)

 No

254 (87.9)

 Unknown

20 (6.9)

 Unspecified

3 (1.0)

Race

 Black/African American

9 (3.1)

 White

225 (77.9)

 Asian

11 (3.8)

 American Indian/Alaska Native

3 (1.0))

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

0

 Other

16 (5.5)

 Unknown

25 (8.7)

Child’s comorbid conditions

 Asthma

161 (55.7)

 Eczema

144 (49.8)

 Seasonal allergy

228 (78.9)

 Indoor allergy

98 (33.9)

 Pet allergy

153 (52.9)

 Insect allergy

25 (8.7)

 Medication allergy

61 (21.0)

 None

15 (5.2)

 Other

9 (3.1)

Respondent’s relationship to child

 Mother

263 (91.3)

 Father

9 (3.3)

 Grandparent

0

 Other

3 (1.0)

 Unknown

14 (4.8)

Highest level of education

 Some secondary school (9th grade and above)

2 (0.7)

 High school graduate or GED

3 (1.0)

 Some college

20 (6.9)

 College degree

144 49.8)

 Master’s degree

80 (27.7)

 Doctoral degree

23 (8.0)

 Unknown

17 (5.9)

Income

  < $50,000

18 (6.2)

 $50,000-$74,999

24 (8.3)

 $75,000-$99,999

39 (13.5)

 $100,000 or higher

160 (55.4)

 Unknown

48 (16.6)

Region

 Northeast

102 (35.3)

 Midwest

105 (36.3)

 South

31 (10.7)

 West

20 (6.9)

 Unknown

31 (10.7)

Food allergy and anaphylaxis policies

Of the 289 parent respondents, 18.7% felt that school was unsafe for their food allergic child, and an additional 8.7% were unsure about their child’s safety while at school (Table 2). Regarding the availability of epinephrine, approximately half of parents reported that their child was allowed to self-carry their epinephrine (57.8%), that their child’s epinephrine was readily available in the classroom (50.2%), and that their child’s school had non-student-specific stock epinephrine available (53.7%). Stock epinephrine was less frequently reported to be available on field trips (36%), after school (10%) or to travel with groups to off-site after-school events (11.4%). However, nearly one-quarter (24.2%) of parents did not know if their child’s school had stock epinephrine available, with 28.6% reporting uncertainty about epinephrine policies related to field trips and 54.3% reporting uncertainty about epinephrine policies relating to after-school activities). The majority of parents who reported that policies related to epinephrine were in place felt that these policies were helpful (87.9-96.7% depending on the policy). Similarly, nearly all parents who reported that epinephrine policies were not in place felt that such policies were needed (81.2-92.2% depending on the policy). In the lunchroom, the policies most frequently reported to be in place were designated areas in the lunchroom for students with food allergy (63.4%) and clear cleaning procedures (55.4%). Parents were least likely to report that menus with allergen information were available to them (34.6%) and that food items were labeled with allergen information (12.5%). The majority of parents felt that the lunchroom policies in place in their child’s school were helpful (95-91.7%) or that such policies were needed (91.2-80.6%), with the exception of having designated lunch areas for students with food allergy (helpful = 69.6%, needed = 32.1%).
Table 2

School Food Allergy Policies

Policy

Yes

No

Unsure

 

N = 289

School is a generally safe environment

210 (72.7)

54 (18.7)

25 (8.7)

Epinephrine Policies

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine is available

155 (53.7)

64 (22.2)

70 (24.2)

  Policy is Helpful (if responded “Yes”)/Needed (if responded “No”)

146 (94.2)

59 (92.2)

 

 Children are able to carry their medications

167 (57.8)

86 (29.8)

36 (12.5)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

156 (93.4)

47 (54.7)

 

 Child’s epinephrine is readily available in the classroom

145 (50.2)

129 (44.6)

15 (5.2)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

 

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available on all school field trips (N = 287)

104 (36.3)

101 (35.2)

82 (28.6)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

95 (91.4)

82 (81.2)

 

  Who carries epinephrine on field trips (if responded “Yes”)

   Teacher

60 (58.3)

  

   School-appointed chaperone

15 (14.6)

  

   School nurse

8 (7.8)

  

   Unsure

6 (5.8)

  

   Other

14 (13.6)

  

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available for after-school activities

30 (10.4)

136 (47.1)

123 (42.6)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

29 (96.7)

119 (88.8)

 

  Who carries epinephrine during after-school activities (if responded “Yes”)

   Athletic trainer

1 (3.3)

  

   School nurse

3 (10.0)

  

   School staff

7 (23.3)

  

   Other

19 (63.3)

  

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine travels with every group

33 (11.4)

99 (34.3)

157 (54.3)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

29 (87.9)

82 (82.8)

 

  Who carries epinephrine during after-school activities (if responded “Yes”)

   Athletic trainer

1 (3.0)

  

   School nurse

4 (12.1)

  

   School staff

10 (30.3)

  

   Coach/teacher

9 (27.3)

  

   Other

11 (33.3)

  

Lunchroom Policies

 Designated lunch areas for students with food allergies

184 (63.4)

78 (27)

27 (9.3)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

128 (69.6)

25 (32.1)

 

 School lunch menus with allergen information available

100 (34.6)

128 (44.3)

61 (21.1)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

93 (93)

110 (85.9)

 

 Food items are labeled with allergen information

36 (12.5)

144 (49.8)

109 (37.7)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

33 (91.7)

116 (80.6)

 

 Clear cleaning procedures in the lunchroom

160 (55.4)

34 (11.8)

95 (32.9)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

152 (95)

31 (91.2)

 

Classroom Policies

 Snack policy in the classroom

178 (61.6)

98 (33.9)

13 (4.5)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

159 (89.3)

63 (64.3)

 

 Strict food guidelines for celebrations (holidays and birthdays) (N = 287)

153 (53.3)

120 (41.9)

14 (4.9)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

138 (90.2)

96 (80)

 

  What are the recommendations (if responded “Yes”)

   Food with a clear ingredient label is allowed

59 (38.6)

  

   No food is allowed

48 (31.4)

  

   Unsure

4 (2.6)

  

   Other

42 (27.5)

  

Field Trip & After-School Policies

 When food is not provided by the school for field trips, all parents are provided with food guidelines

74 (25.6)

154 (53.3)

61 (21.1)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

58 (78.4)

104 (69.3)

 

 Strict food policies for after-school activities

23 (8.0)

161 (55.7)

105 (36.3)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

22 (95.7)

120 (74.5)

 

 Concessions are clearly labeled for food allergens

18 (6.2)

152 (52.6)

119 (41.2)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

18 (100)

133 (87.5)

 

Food Allergy Education Policies

 Training and education for students

31 (10.7)

207 (71.6)

51 (17.7)

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

28 (90.3)

177 (85.5)

 

 Educational materials in the lunchroom relating to food allergy

18 (6.2)

176 (60.9)

95 (32.9)

 Policy is Helpful/Needed

14 (77.8)

136 (77.3)

 

 Educational materials in the classroom relating to food allergy (N = 287)

16 (5.6)

210 (73.2)

 

  Policy is Helpful/Needed

13 (81.3)

161 (76.7)

61 (21.3)

Transportation Policies

 Children take the school bus to/from school

129 (44.6)

155 (53.6)

5 (1.7)

  Adult on school bus to/from school is trained on allergic reactions (if responded “Yes”)

48 (37.2)

33 (25.6)

48 (37.2)

In the classroom, a snack policy was reported to be in place by 61.6% of parents and strict food guidelines for celebrations were reported by 53.3%. These policies were deemed helpful by 89.3 and 90.2% of parents, respectively. While 80% of parents who reported that classroom celebration food guidelines were not in place felt they were needed, only 64.3% felt a classroom snack policy was needed.

Policies related to food allergy education and training were among the least-frequently reported. While 37.2% reported that an adult on their child’s bus was trained in the use of epinephrine, only 10.7% reported that food allergy education/training were available for students, 6.2% reported that lunchroom educational materials were available, and 5.6% reported that classroom educational materials were available. However, the majority of parents felt that such policies were helpful (90.3-77.8%) or needed (85.5-76.7%).

Policies related to field trips and after-school were also among those less frequently reported to be in place. One-quarter (25.6%) of parents reported that food guidelines were provided for field trips, 8.0% reported that strict food policies were in place for after-school activities, and 6.2% reported that concessions were labeled with allergen information. However, many parents reported being unsure of whether their child’s school had these policies (concessions labeled = 37.7%, after school food policies = 36.3%). The majority of parents felt that field trip and after-school policies were either helpful (100-78.4%) or needed (87.5-69.3%).

Associations between food allergy policies and school characteristics

Significant associations were noted between several food allergy policies and student age (Table 3). As expected, more students were reported to be allowed to self-carry epinephrine in high school and middle school as compared to elementary school (91.4, 78.3, 47.3%, p < 0.01). Parents of elementary and middle school students reported that their child’s school had designated areas in the lunchroom (elementary = 72.5%, middle = 67.4%, high = 20.0%, p < 0.01), clear lunchroom cleaning procedures (elementary = 60.4%, middle = 65.3%, high = 20.0%, p < 0.01), and strict classroom policies for snacks (elementary = 69.8%, middle = 52.2%, high = 31.4%, p < 0.01) and celebrations (elementary = 56.6%, middle = 54.4%, high = 34.3%, p < 0.01) more frequently than parents of high school students.
Table 3

Unadjusted Association with Outcomes: Grade Level (Yes vs. No/Unsure/No Response)

Policy

Grade Level

 

Elementary

Middle

High

Unknown

 

N = 182

N = 46

N = 35

N = 26

School is a generally safe environment

137 (75.3)

34 (73.9)

24 (68.6)

15 (57.7)

Epinephrine Policies

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine is available

95 (52.2)

28 (60.9)

20 (57.1)

12 (46.2)

 Children are able to carry their medications

86 (47.3)

36 (78.3)

32 (91.4)

13 (50.0)**

 Child’s epinephrine is readily available in the classroom

94 (51.7)

22 (47.8)

16 (45.7)

13 (50.0)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available on all school field trips

63 (34.6)

20 (13.4)

9 (25.7)

12 (46.2)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available for after-school activities

14 (7.7)

10 (21.7)

4 (11.4)

2 (7.7)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine travels with groups outside of school

18 (9.9)

6 (13.0)

5 (14.3)

4 (15.4)

Lunchroom Policies

 Designated lunch areas for students with food allergies

132 (72.5)

31 (67.4)

7 (20.0)

14 (53.9)**

 School lunch menus with allergen information available

54 (29.7)

18 (39.1)

16 (45.7)

12 (46.2)

 Food items are labeled with allergen information

24 (13.2)

4 (8.7)

5 (14.3)

3 ((11.5)

 Clear cleaning procedures in the lunchroom

110 (60.4)

30 (65.2)

7 (20.0)

13 (50.0)**

Classroom-Specific Policies

 Snack policy in the classroom

127 (69.8)

24 (52.2)

11 (31.4)

16 (61.5)**

 Strict food guidelines for celebrations (holidays and birthdays)

103 (56.6)

25 (54.4)

12 (34.3)

13 (50)**

Field Trip & After School Policies

 When food is not provided by the school for field trips, all parents are provided with food guidelines

52 (28.6)

10 (21.7)

5 (14.3)

7 (26.9)

 Strict food policies for after-school activities

14 (7.7)

5 (6.5)

0 (0.0)

3 (11.5)

 Concessions are clearly labeled for food allergens

11 (6.0)

4 (8.7)

0 (0.0)

3 (11.5)

Food Allergy Education Policies

 Training and education for students

22 (12.1)

5 (10.9)

2 (5.7)

2 (7.7)

 Educational materials in the lunchroom relating to food allergy

8 (4.4)

5 (10.9)

2 (5.7)

3 (11.5)

 Educational materials in the classroom relating to food allergy

9 (5.0)

2 (4.4)

2 (5.7)

3 (11.5)

 Children take school bus to/from school

82 (45.1)

25 (54.4)

14 (40.0)

8 (30.8)

  Adult on school bus is trained on allergic reactions

32 (39.0)

12 (48.0)

2 (14.3)

2 (25.0)

**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

School type (public versus private) was also significantly associated with reported food allergy policies (Table 4). Parents of children attending public schools more frequently reported that their child’s school had a designated area in the lunchroom compared to private schools (67.4% vs 50%, p < 0.05). Parents of children attending private schools more frequently reported that their child’s epinephrine was available in the classroom (62.9% vs 46.7%, p < 0.05) and that strict food guidelines were in place for field trips when food was not provided by the school (38.7% vs 22%, p < 0.01). Finally, parents of children in private schools more frequently reported that students were provided with training and education on food allergy (17.7% vs 8.8%, p < 0.05) and that educational materials on food allergy were available in the lunchroom (14.5% vs 4%, p < 0.01).
Table 4

Unadjusted Association with Outcomes: Public vs. Private (Yes vs. No/Unsure/No Response)

Policy

Type of School

 

Private

Public

 

N = 62

N = 227

School is a generally safe environment

44 (71.0)

166 (73.1)

Epinephrine Policies

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine is available

29 (46.8)

126 (55.1)

 Children are able to carry their medications

37 (59.7)

130 (57.3)

 Child’s epinephrine is readily available in the classroom

39 (62.9)

106 (46.7)*

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available on all school field trips

25 (40.3)

79 (34.8)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available for after-school activities

9 (14.5)

21 (9.3)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine travels with groups outside of school

9 (14.5)

24 (10.6)

Lunchroom Policies

 Designated lunch areas for students with food allergies

31 (50.0)

153 (67.4)*

 School lunch menus with allergen information available

18 (29.0)

82 (36.1)

 Food items are labeled with allergen information

9 (14.5)

27 (11.9)

 Clear cleaning procedures in the lunchroom

37 (59.7)

123 (54.2)

Classroom Policies

 Snack policy in the classroom

36 (58.1)

142 (62.6)

 Strict food guidelines for celebrations (holidays and birthdays)

27 (43.6)

126 (55.5)

Field Trip & After-School Policies

 When food is not provided by the school for field trips, all parents are provided with food guidelines

24 (38.7)

50 (22.0)**

 Strict food policies for after-school activities

8 (12.9)

15 (6.6)

 Concessions are clearly labeled for food allergens

4 (6.5)

14 (6.2))

Food Allergy Education Policies

 Training and education for students

11 (17.7)

20 (8.8)*

 Educational materials in the lunchroom relating to food allergy

9 (14.5)

9 (4.0)**

 Educational materials in the classroom relating to food allergy

5 (8.1)

11 (4.9)

 Children take school bus to/from school

17 (27.4)

112 (49.3)

 Adult on school bus is trained on allergic reactions

6 (35.3)

42 (37.5)

** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

Differences in food allergy policy were also identified based on geographic location (Table 5). Parents in the Northeast more frequently reported that food items in the lunchroom were labeled with allergen information as compared to other regions (NE = 19.6%, MW = 9.5%, South = 3.2%, West = 0%, p < 0.05). Parents in the Northeast and Midwest more frequently reported strict food allergy guidelines for classroom celebrations as compared to those in the South and West (NE = 59.8%, MW = 56.2%, South = 35.5%, West = 30.0%, p < 0.05). Parents of students who rode the school bus to/from school in the South more frequently reported that there is an adult present on the school bus who was trained in the management of allergic reactions as compared to parents in the Northeast, Midwest, and West (South = 81.3%, NE = 24.6%, MW = 43.3%, West = 25%; p < 0.01).
Table 5

Unadjusted Association with Outcomes: Region (Yes vs. No/Unsure/No Response)

Policy

Region

 

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

Unknown

 

N = 102

N = 105

N = 31

N = 20

N = 31

School is generally safe environment

82 (80.4)

75 (71.4)

22 (71.0)

11 (55.0)

20 (64.5)

Epinephrine Policies

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine is available

54 (52.9)

59 (56.2)

17 (54.8)

8 (40.0)

17 (54.8)

 Children are able to carry their medications

52 (51.0)

65 (61.9)

17 (54.8)

13 (65.0)

20 (64.5)

 Child’s epinephrine is readily available in the classroom

46 (45.1)

57 (54.3)

18 (58.1)

7 (35.0)

17 (54.8)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available on all school field trips

34 (33.3)

42 (40.0)

12 (38.7)

2 (10.0)

14 (45.2)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine available for after-school activities

9 (8.82)

16 (15.2)

3 (9.7)

1 (5.0)

1 (3.2)

 Emergency (stock) epinephrine travels with groups outside of school

13 (12.8)

11 (10.5)

1 (3.2)

1 (5.0)

7 (22.6)

Lunchroom Policies

 Designated lunch areas for students with food allergies

63 (61.8)

74 (70.5)

20 (64.5)

8 (40.0)

19 (61.3)

 School lunch menus with allergen information available

36 (35.3)

28 (26.7)

14 (45.2)

9 (45.0)

13 (41.9)

 Food items are labeled with allergen information

20 (19.6)

10 (9.5)

1 (3.2)

0 (0.0)

5 (16.1)*

 Clear cleaning procedures in the lunchroom

60 (58.8)

57 (54.3)

18 (58.1)

9 (45.0)

16 (51.6)

Classroom Policies

 Snack policy in the classroom

64 (62.8)

70 (66.7)

20 (64.5)

8 (40.0)

16 (51.6)

 Strict food guidelines for celebrations (holidays and birthdays)

61 (59.8)

59 (56.2)

11 (35.5)

6 (30.0)

16 (51.6)*

Field Trip & After-School Policies

 When food is not provided by the school for field trips, all parents are provided with food guidelines

30 (29.4)

24 (22.9)

6 (16.1)

4 (20.0)

11 (35.5)

 Strict food policies for after-school activities

8 (7.8)

11 (10.5)

0 (0.0)

1 (5.0)

3 (9.7)

 Concessions are clearly labeled for food allergens

6 (5.9)

6 (5.7)

0 (0.0)

2 (10.0)

4 (12.9)

Food Allergy Education Policies

 Training and education for students

10 (9.8)

13 (12.4)

3 (9.7)

2 (10.0)

3 (9.7)

 Educational materials in the lunchroom relating to food allergy

5 (4.9)

9 (8.6)

2 (6.5)

1 (5.0)

1 (3.2)

 Educational materials in the classroom relating to food allergy

5 (4.9)

4 (3.8)

3 (9.7)

2 (10.0)

2 (6.45)

 Children take school bus to/from school

65 (63.7)

30 (28.6)

16 (51.6)

4 (20.0)

14 (45.2)

  Adult on school bus is trained on allergic reactions

16 (24.6)

13 (43.3)

13 (81.3)

1 (25.0)

5 (35.7)**

**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

Discussion

The health and safety needs of students must be met so that children can thrive and achieve their academic potential in a safe and inclusive environment. To date, given the lack of research on the most effective strategies to manage food allergy in the school setting and the subsequent lack of standardized national and local requirements, schools use a variety of approaches to manage food allergy and to minimize the risk of accidental exposures to food allergens. To our knowledge, the present study was one of the first to report on school food allergy polices from the perspective of parents of children with food allergy. Importantly, approximately one in five parents in our study did not feel that their food allergic child was safe while at school. Significant variations were reported in food allergy management and anaphylaxis preparedness strategies and appeared to be affected by the age of the student body, type of school (public versus private), and geographic location. Additionally, while the majority of parents felt that the polices in place in their child’s school were helpful, most also believed that the implementation of additional polices was necessary, including policies related to epinephrine access, labeling of food items, and food allergy education and training.

Half of the parents in our study reported that their child’s school carried non-student-specific stock epinephrine, with an additional one-quarter being unaware of whether their child’s school had stock epinephrine available. Over 90% of parents felt that this policy was either helpful or needed. Whereas most states have legislation allowing schools to voluntarily stock undesignated epinephrine auto-injectors (EAI), few states have legislative mandates requiring that schools do so [11, 12]. In states without a mandate, barriers to stock epinephrine availability may include administrative and staff resistance, lack of adequate staff education, and cost [1315]. However, given that prompt administration of epinephrine is the only life-saving treatment for anaphylaxis and that 25% of cases of anaphylaxis in schools occur in children previously undiagnosed with a food allergy [9, 16, 17], improving the availability of stock epinephrine should be a priority in improving the management of food allergy in the school setting. The majority of parents also desired that stock epinephrine be available on school field trips and during after-school activities. Such policies may pose a challenge for schools, as they require the availability of additional EAIs. However, as up to 19% of anaphylactic reactions during the school day occur outside the school building or on field trips, the availability of stock EAIs for these situations is an important measure to consider [18].

Several policies were infrequently reported to be in place, but frequently deemed to be needed. Half of parents reported that food items sold at lunch and concessions after-school were not labeled with allergen information, though over 80% felt that such labeling should be implemented. Similarly, only 44% of parents indicated that lunch menus with allergen information were available to them, with 85% feeling that this policy was needed. Because thorough review of ingredients in all food and drink products prior to consumption is a core strategy for food allergen avoidance and anaphylaxis prevention [19] widespread implementation of ingredient labeling policies should be prioritized in order to protect students and prevent potential allergic reactions at school. Similarly, policies related to food allergy training and education (i.e., student education, materials available in the lunchroom and classroom, and training of school bus staff) were among those least frequently reported to be in place, though approximately four in five parents felt that such policies should to be implemented. Educational programs have been shown to be effective in increasing food allergy knowledge as well as appropriate use of an EAI and may be an additional key area of policy on which to focus [20, 21].

Expectedly, several school food allergy polices appeared to be driven by the age of the student body. For instance, parents of elementary and middle school students more frequently reported designated lunch areas and food allergy policies for classroom snacks and celebrations compared to parents of high school students. These differences are likely age-appropriate, as younger children are less developmentally and cognitively ready to self-manage and to minimize their risk of accidental food allergen ingestions. Similarly, middle and high school students were more frequently reported to be allowed to self-carry epinephrine, which is consistent with greater autonomy and food allergy self-management skills with age. Importantly, adolescents remain at greatest risk of poor outcomes from food allergy [2224]. This unique population may therefore particularly benefit from increased training and education on food allergy, a policy which was desired by the majority of survey respondents.

Differences in school policy also appeared to exist between public and private schools. Private schools provided their students with more food allergy training and education, had stricter food guidelines for field trips when food was not provided by the school, and were more likely to have epinephrine available in the classroom. These differences may be based on variations in financial and time resources, staffing, and level of school nurse coverage. Parents of children with food allergy may also have more influence in shaping policy decisions at private as compared to public schools.

Although the majority of parents felt that their child’s school was generally safe, one in four were not sure or did not consider the school environment to be safe for their food allergic child. Such anxiety about safety and the potential for allergic reactions may negatively impact quality of life for students and their families and adversely affect school attendance [25, 26]. Further study is warranted to investigate the reasons behind these negative perceptions and potential opportunities for improvement. For example, clear documentation of student-specific medical needs with medical forms (e.g. individualized health plan, anaphylaxis emergency plan, school 504 plan), clear labeling of food items sold at school, an adequate supply of appropriate medications (including stock epinephrine), and food allergy/anaphylaxis education for school staff may improve parental perceptions of safety during the school day [4, 2729].

It is also notable that parents were frequently unaware of whether certain food allergy policies were in place in their child’s school. For instance, 40-50% were unsure about the availability of stock epinephrine for after-school activities and approximately 40% were uncertain of whether food items sold at lunch or after school were labeled with allergen information. It is possible that many parents were not affected by such policies (e.g., children brought their own food to school or did not participate in after-school activities). However, clear and timely communication and a collaborative approach between the student’s school and family may provide an opportunity to help parents be more aware about policies that are in place and therefore feel that school is a safer environment for their food allergic child [30].

Several limitations of our study should be mentioned. The use of self-report in data collection includes inherent risk to internal validity related to inaccurate recall bias, selective recall bias and social desirability bias. Additionally, respondents were recruited through food allergy support and advocacy organizations and were predominantly Caucasian, college-educated, and high-income individuals. Additionally, the survey was distributed exclusively online, in English. Such limitations suggest that these findings may not be generalizable to the broader U.S. population of families with food allergies. For example, parents with higher household income may be more likely to have children at schools in good financial standing and with more resources available for food allergy management. Future efforts should be made to include underrepresented groups from a more diverse socioeconomic background, in hopes of having a more representative population. Lastly, given the nature of the survey, our results are undoubtedly affected by the potential lack of parental awareness regarding specific food allergy policies. This lack of awareness, however, is also a notable finding.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that while most schools reportedly have one or more food allergy policies in place, a substantial proportion of parents have concerns over the safety of their child in the school setting. Many parents feel that additional policies are necessary to improve the safety of the school environment for children with food allergy. The availability of stock epinephrine, improved allergen labeling of food and menus provided by the school and increased food allergy education may be key areas of policy on which to focus. Additionally, many parents may not be aware of all the policies that are already in place in their child’s school, which highlights the importance of maintaining an ongoing dialogue between parents, school administration, school nurses, pediatric health care providers, and school staff. There also appears to be differences in food allergy policies related to student age, school type, and geographic location. Future studies may investigate the reasons behind such policy variations and identify those policies that are most effective in creating a safe school environment, thus promoting better clinical outcomes for children with food allergy in the school setting.

Abbreviation

EAI: 

Epinephrine auto-injector

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Allergy & Asthma Network and Marilyn Freund for supporting this research. We would also like to thank Tonya Winders (Allergy & Asthma Network) and Marjorie Rae Yarbrough for providing insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Funding

All phases of this study were supported by Marilyn Freund and the Allergy and Asthma Network, Vienna, Virginia.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

SSM drafted the initial manuscript and reviewed and revised the manuscript. AR, OK, LK, and JW reviewed and revised the manuscript. DH assembled, cleaned and performed an initial analysis of the data. BS conducted the data analysis. RG conceptualized and designed the study and reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained before a participant could access the survey. This study was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board of Northwestern University.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, USA
(2)
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, USA
(3)
Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Michigan Association, Ann Arbor, USA
(4)
Molloy College, New York, USA
(5)
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, USA
(6)
Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward J. Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, USA
(7)
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA
(8)
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, USA
(9)
Center for Community Health, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, USA

References

  1. Gupta RS, Springston EE, Warrier MR, Smith B, Kumar R, Pongracic J, Holl JL. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):e9–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Liu AH, Jaramillo R, Sicherer SH, Wood RA, Bock SA, Burks AW, Massing M, Cohn RD, Zeldin DC. J Allergy CIin Immunol. 2010;126(4):798–806.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Sampath V, Sindher SB, Zhang W, Nadeau KC. Annals Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;120:254–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Voluntary guidelines for managing food allergies in schools and early care and education programs. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/foodallergies/pdf/13_243135_A_Food_Allergy_Web_508.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2018.
  5. Hogue SL, Goss D, Hollis K, Silvia S, White MV. J Asthma Allergy. 2016;9:109–15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Conover-Walker MK, Wood RA. Arch Ped Adolest Med. 2001;155(7):790–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. White MV, Hogue SL, Bennett ME, Gross D, Millar K, Hollis K, Siegel PH, Wolf RA, Wooddell MJ, Silvia S. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2015;36(4):306–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Toole TP, Anderson S, Miller C, Guthrie J. J Sch Health. 2007;77(8):500–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Sicherer SH, Furlong TJ, DeSimone J, Sampson HA. J Pediatrics. 2001;138(4):560–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Allergy and Asthma Network (AAN). School stock epinephrine laws. http://www.allergyasthmanetwork.org/advocacy/current-issues/stock-epinephrine. Accessed 25 March 2017.
  12. Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE). School access to epinephrine map. Available from: https://www.foodallergy.org/advocacy/epinephrine/map. Accessed 25 Mar 2017.
  13. Morris P, Baker D, Belot C, Edwards A. J School Health. 2011;81(8):471–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hogue SL, Goss D, Kelly Hollis SS, White MV. J Asthma Allergy. 2016;9:109–15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Shah SS, Parker CL, Smith EB, Davis CM. J Allergy Clin Immunol IP. 2014;2(3):288–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. McIntyre CL, Sheetz AH, Carroll CR, Young MC. Pediatrics. 2005;116(5):1134–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sicherer SH, Mahr T. American Academy of Pediatrics section on allergy and immunology. Pediatrics. 2010;126(6):1232–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McIntyre CL, Sheetz AH, Carroll CR, Young MC. Pediatrics. 2005;11695:1134–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Boyce JA, Assa’ad A, Burks AW, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(6 suppl):S1–S58.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Shah SS. Parker CL. Davis CM Clin Pediatr. 2013;52(9):812–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Wahl A, Stephens H, Ruffo M, Jones AL. J School Nursing. 2015;31(2):91–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107(1):191–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sampson MA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sicherer SH. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(6):1440–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Munoz-Furlong A, Weiss CC. Current All Asthma Reports. 2009;9(1):57–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Bollinger ME, Dahlquist LM, Mudd K, Sonntag C, Dillinger L, McKenna K. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;96(3):415–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Springston EE, Smith B, Shulruff J, Pongracic J, Holl JL, Gupta RS. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010;105(4):287–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pistiner M, Devore CD. Pediatr Ann. 2013;42(8):334–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Russell AF, Huber MM. J Asthma Allergy Educ. 2013;4(6):290–304.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang J, Sicherer SH. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3):e20164005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rivkina V, Tapke DE, Cardenas LD, Harvey-Gintoft B, Whyte SA, Gupta RS. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1250.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement