A Comparative Analysis of Eating Behavior of School-Aged Children with Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Their Caregivers' Quality of Life: Perspectives of Caregivers
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can affect eating behavior in infants and children and this may lead to stressful interactions with their caregivers and potentially impact their caregivers' quality of life. Clinical evaluation of eating behaviors can be time consuming and burdensome. Caregivers can provide a comprehensive assessment of their child’s eating behavior; however, this has not been well studied in children with EoE. In a case–control study, we used Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ) to compare caregivers' perception of eating behaviors in children (ages 11 ± 4 years; Mean ± SD) with EoE (cEoE; N = 42) to that of non-EoE controls (cControls; N = 38), and Feeding/Swallowing Impact on Children’s Caregivers Questionnaire (FS-IS) to examine the impact of EoE-related eating problems on their caregivers' quality of life. There were no differences between the cEoE and cControls perceptions of eating behaviors as assessed by CEBQ. In FS-IS, the cEoE indicated that they were worried about the way their child would breathe or if the child would choke while feeding (2.28 ± 0.16 vs. 1.25 ± 0.13; p < 0.001), and also indicated that it was hard for them to feed their child as it took a long time to prepare liquids and foods the “right” way (2.1 ± 0.20 vs. 1.17 ± 0.09; p < 0.001) when compared to cControls. Our results suggest that caregivers' perception of the eating behavior of school-aged children with and without EoE do not differ significantly, yet the perception of feeding/swallowing issues in children with EoE can negatively impact their caregivers' quality of life. Further research is needed to discern the eating behavior in children with EoE and its relationship with their caregivers' quality of life.
KeywordsEating behavior Eosinophilic esophagitis Deglutition and deglutition disorders Feeding problems Swallowing problems Caregivers' quality of life
G.H. is supported by American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Career Development Award, Vanderbilt University Turner Hazinski award, Vanderbilt University Katherine Dodd Faculty Scholar program, and the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR; U54 AI117804) training award. CEGIR is part of the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network, an initiative of the Office of Rare Diseases Research, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and is funded through collaboration between the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. CEGIR also is supported by patient advocacy groups including the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders, Campaign Urging Research for Eosinophilic Diseases, and Eosinophilic Family Coalition. J.H is supported by a Food Allergy Research and Education Clinical Network Grant and the Vanderbilt University Katherine Dodd Faculty Scholar program. We acknowledge Ms. Cindy Womack-Ramirez and Ms. Melissa Beavers for their assistance with data collection and data management.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors disclose that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 4.Cannington EM, Dolen WK. Feeding dysfunction in children with eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases. Pediatrics. 2011;128(S110):S110.2-S111.Google Scholar
- 10.Piazza-Waggoner C, Driscoll KA, Gilman DK, Powers SW. A comparison using parent report and direct observation of mealtime behaviors in young children with cystic fibrosis: implications for practical and empirically based behavioral assessment in routine clinical care. Child Health Care. 2008;37:38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar