Journals / Bozok Tıp Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICE AND AWARENESS LEVELS OF PHYSICIANS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ANAPHYLAXIS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY STUDY

Anafilaksi Yönetiminde Hekimlerin Bilgi, Uygulama ve Farkındalık Düzeyleri: Kesitsel Bir Anket Çalışması

Leyla Çevirme(Adana City Training and Research Hospital Division of Immunology and Allergy)0009-0005-8940-0485
Susamber Dik(Adana City Training and Research Hospital Division of Immunology and Allergy)0000-0001-9596-3931
Güzin Özden(University of Health Sciences, Adana City Training and Research Hospital)0000-0003-4856-2267
Pages
224–234
Publication Date
2026-06-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Enhancing physician awareness could also contribute to reducing morbidity associated with delayed or inadequate treatment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate physicians’ awareness regarding the management of anaphylaxis, an acute medical emergency that can occur in adults due to various triggers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Of 434 respondents, one declined participation and 23 were excluded based on criteria, leaving 410 participants.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Enhancing physician awareness could also contribute to reducing morbidity associated with delayed or inadequate treatment.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anafilaksi · Epinefrin · Hekim

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate physicians’ awareness regarding the management of anaphylaxis, an acute medical emergency that can occur in adults due to various triggers. Material and Methods: The study included general practitioners, residents, specialists, and faculty members, excluding those in Pediatrics, Allergy-Immunology, and Basic Medical Sciences. Of 434 respondents, one declined participation and 23 were excluded based on criteria, leaving 410 participants. The 30-item questionnaire comprised two sections: demographic/professional information (10 items) and knowledge-attitude-practice domains (20 items) covering anaphylaxis diagnosis, clinical features, treatment, and follow-up. Results: Of the participants, 242 were female and 168 were male, with a mean age of 37.9±9.1 years. The rates of correct responses regarding the definition of anaphylaxis, affected organ systems, and common allergens causing anaphylaxis in adults were 81.7%, 82%, and 20%, respectively. Adrenaline was correctly identified as the first-line treatment by 68.8% of respondents. A total of 223 physicians reported prior anaphylaxis training, with 109 indicating that more than five years had passed since. The proportion of physicians completing all management steps, including referral to an Allergy-Immunology specialist, was 61.2%. A significant correlation was found between years of professional experience and accuracy in anaphylaxis management. Prior training significantly improved response accuracy, whereas a longer time since training negatively affected performance. Conclusion: Physicians demonstrated a high need for continued education on anaphylaxis. Persistent uncertainty was noted in diagnostic criteria and mild case management, emphasizing the necessity for regular, standardized training in accordance with current anaphylaxis guidelines. Targeted educational interventions may improve early recognition and appropriate management of anaphylaxis. Enhancing physician awareness could also contribute to reducing morbidity associated with delayed or inadequate treatment.

Özet

Amaç: Erişkin hastalarda çeşitli tetikleyiciler ile ortaya çıkabilen ve akut acil bir tablo olan anafilaksinin yönetimi ile ilgili hekimlerdeki farkındalığı araştırmak. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya pratisyen hekimler, asistanlar, uzmanlar ve öğretim üyeleri dahil edilmiştir. Pediatri, Alerji-İmmünoloji ve Temel Tıp Bilimleri hekimleri dahil edilmemiştir. Toplam 434 katılımcı yanıtlamıştır, 1 kişi katılmayı reddetmiş ve 23 kişi dışlama kriterleri nedeniyle çalışmadan çıkarılmıştır. Anket 30 sorudan oluşmaktadır; demografik ve mesleki bilgiler (10 soru) ve bilgi-tutum-uygulama alanları (20 soru) olmak üzere iki ana bölümden oluşmuştur. İlk bölümde demografik veriler, anafilaksi eğitimi/deneyimi sorgulanmıştır. İkinci bölümde anafilaksinin tanı, klinik, tedavi ve izlem süresiyle ilgili sorular mevcuttur. Bulgular: Ankete katılanların 242’si kadın, 168’si erkekti. Yaş ortalaması 37,9±9,1 idi. Anafilaksi tanımı, anafilaksi sırasında etkilenen sistemler, yetişkinlerde anafilaksiye neden olan en yaygın alerjenler sorularına doğru cevap verenlerin oranı %81,7, %82 ve %20 olarak saptanmıştır. Anafilaksi tedavisinde ilk tercih olarak adrenalin kullanılması yanıtını verenlerin oranı %68,8 saptandı. Çalışmamızda 223 kişi anafilaksi ile ilgili eğitim aldığını ifade etmiş ve 109’unun eğitimden sonra geçen sürenin >5 yıl olduğu öğrenilmiştir. İmmünoloji- Alerji uzmanına yönlendirme dahil tüm adımları yapan hekim oranı %61,2 idi. Meslekteki deneyim yılı ile anafilaksi yönetimi sorusundaki doğru yanıt oranı arasında güçlü ve anlamlı bir ilişki saptanmıştır. Anafilaksi eğitimi almış olmak, doğru yanıt oranını anlamlı biçimde etkilemiştir. Eğitimden geçen süre ile doğru yanıt oranı arasında anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Hekimlerin anafilaksiye yönelik farkındalık ve eğitim gereksinimlerinin yüksek olduğu, tanısal gereklilikler ve hafif olgu yönetimi konularında bazı belirsizliklerin sürdüğü görülmüştür. Tüm hekimlerin güncel rehberler ışığında düzenli eğitim alması gerekliliği ortaya çıkmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çevirme, L., Dik, S., Özden, G. (2026). KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICE AND AWARENESS LEVELS OF PHYSICIANS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ANAPHYLAXIS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY STUDY. Bozok Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.16919/bozoktip.1823734

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Muraro A, Worm M, Alviani C, Cardona V, DunnGalvin A, Garvey LH, et al. EAACI guidelines: Anaphylaxis (2021 update). Allergy. 2022;77(2):357-77.
  2. Francuzik W, Ruëff F, Bauer A, Bilò MB, Cardona V, Christoff G, et al. Phenotype and risk factors of venom-induced anaphylaxis: A case-control study of the European Anaphylaxis Registry. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;147(2):653-62.e9.
  3. Lee S, Hess EP, Lohse C, Gilani W, Chamberlain AM, Campbell RL. TRENDS, CHARACTERISTICS AND INCIDENCE OF ANAPHYLAXIS IN 2001-2010: A POPULATION BASED STUDY. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(1):182-188.e2.
  4. Golden DBK, Wang J, Waserman S, Akin C, Campbell RL, Ellis AK, et al. Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. 2024;132(2):124-76.
  5. Figueira MCBDS, Lira GV de AG, Silva GAP da, Albuquerque EC de, Silva LR, Solé D, et al. Anaphylaxis management: knowledge of 6. Brazilian pediatricians. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2024;43:e2024087.
  6. Sampson HA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Bock SA, Schmitt C, Bass R, Chowdhury BA, et al. Symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115(3):584-91.
  7. Cardona V, Ansotegui IJ, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal Y, Fernandez Rivas M, Fineman S et al. World allergy organization anaphylaxis guidance 2020. World Allergy Organ J. 2020;13(10):100472.
  8. Baççıoğlu A, Yılmazel Uçar E. Level of knowledge about anaphylaxis among health care providers. Tuberk Toraks. 2013;61(2):140-6.
  9. El-Sayed ZA, El-Owaidy R, Hussein SM, Hossam D, El-Sawi IH, Adel A, et al. Physicians’ knowledge and practice concerning diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis: The situation in Egypt. Afr J Emerg Med. 2021;11(4):464-70.
  10. Cimen SS, Sayili SB. Level of knowledge among healthcare professionals regarding anaphylaxis. Asia Pacific Allergy. 2022;12(4):e41.
  11. Farias GB de. Contributos da aprendizagem significativa de David Ausubel para o desenvolvimento da Competência em Informação. Perspect ciênc inf. 2022;27:58-76.
  12. González-Díaz SN, Villarreal-González RV, Fuentes-Lara EI, Salinas-Díaz MDR, de Lira-Quezada CE, Macouzet-Sánchez C, et al. Knowledge of healthcare providers in the management of anaphylaxis. World Allergy Organ J. 2021;14(11):100599.
  13. Francis A, Fatovich DM, Arendts G, Macdonald SP, Bosio E, Nagree Y, et al. Serum mast cell tryptase measurements: Sensitivity and specificity for a diagnosis of anaphylaxis in emergency department patients with shock or hypoxaemia. Emerg Med Australas. 2018;30(3):366-74.
  14. Simons FE, Gu X, Simons KJ. Epinephrine absorption in adults: intramuscular versus subcutaneous injection. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;108(5):871-3.
  15. Adiga S, Nayak V, Bairy KL. Treatment of anaphylaxis in adults: A questionnaire survey. Online J Health Allied Sci. 2009;7(4).
  16. Drupad HS, Nagabushan H. Level of knowledge about anaphylaxis and its management among health care providers. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2015;19(7):412-5.
  17. Orhan F, Civelek E, Şahiner ÜM, Arga M, Can D, Çalikaner AZ, et al. Anaphylaxis: Turkish National Guideline 2018. Asthma Allergy Immunology. 2022;16(4):001-62.
  18. Simons FER, Ardusso LR, Bilò MB, Cardona V, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal YM, et al. International consensus on (ICON) anaphylaxis. World Allergy Organ J. 2014;7(1):9.
  19. Olabarri M, Gonzalez-Peris S, Vázquez P, González-Posada A, Sanz N, Vinuesa A, et al. Management of anaphylaxis in Spain: pediatric emergency care providers’ knowledge. Eur J Emerg Med. 2019;26(3):163-7.
  20. Alghasham YA, Alhumaidi KA, Alharbi AM, Alkhalifah YS. Healthcare Providers’ Perception and Practice Toward Anaphylaxis in Children in the Qassim Region of Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023;15(7):e41366.
  21. Sampson HA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Bock SA, Schmitt C, Bass R, Chowdhury BA, et al. Symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115(3):584-91.