» Articles » PMID: 36683454

Food Allergy Management for Adolescents Using Behavioral Incentives: A Randomized Trial

Abstract

Objective: We sought to evaluate the use of behavioral economics approaches to promote the carrying of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) among adolescents with food allergies. We hypothesized that adolescents who receive frequent text message nudges (Intervention 1) or frequent text message nudges plus modest financial incentives (Intervention 2) would be more likely to carry their epinephrine than members of the usual care control group.

Methods: We recruited 131 adolescents ages 15 to 19 with a food allergy and a current prescription for epinephrine to participate in a cohort multiple randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to participate in Intervention 1, Intervention 2, or to receive usual care. The primary outcome was consistency of epinephrine-carrying, measured as the proportion of checkpoints at which a participant could successfully demonstrate they were carrying their EAI, with photo-documentation of the device.

Results: During Intervention 1, participants who received the intervention carried their EAI 28% of the time versus 38% for control group participants (P = .06). During Intervention 2, participations who received the intervention carried their EAI 45% of the time versus 23% for control group participants (P = .002).

Conclusions: Text message nudges alone were unsuccessful at promoting EAI-carrying but text message nudges combined with modest financial incentives almost doubled EAI-carriage rates among those who received the intervention compared with the control group. However, even with the intervention, adolescents with food allergies carried their EAI <50% of the time. Alternative strategies for making EAIs accessible to adolescents at all times should be implemented.

Citing Articles

A Systematic Review of the Statistical Methods Adopted for Analyzing Follow-Up Data in Cohort Multiple Randomized Controlled Trial.

Narzari H, Nilima N, Vishnu V, Khan M, Gupta A, Srivastava V Cureus. 2024; 16(1):e51558.

PMID: 38313924 PMC: 10835332. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51558.

References
1.
Gallagher M, Worth A, Cunningham-Burley S, Sheikh A . Epinephrine auto-injector use in adolescents at risk of anaphylaxis: a qualitative study in Scotland, UK. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011; 41(6):869-77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03743.x. View

2.
Detry M, Lewis R . The intention-to-treat principle: how to assess the true effect of choosing a medical treatment. JAMA. 2014; 312(1):85-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.7523. View

3.
Ramsey N, Guffey D, Anagnostou K, Coleman N, Davis C . Epidemiology of Anaphylaxis in Critically Ill Children in the United States and Canada. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019; 7(7):2241-2249. PMC: 8411990. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.04.025. View

4.
Strohacker K, Galarraga O, Williams D . The impact of incentives on exercise behavior: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Behav Med. 2013; 48(1):92-9. PMC: 4412849. DOI: 10.1007/s12160-013-9577-4. View

5.
Sampson M, Munoz-Furlong A, Sicherer S . Risk-taking and coping strategies of adolescents and young adults with food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006; 117(6):1440-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.03.009. View