4.6 Article

Toward an operative diagnosis of fussy/picky eating: a latent profile approach in a population-based cohort

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-14

Keywords

Fussy eating; Children; Latent profile analysis; Population-based cohort study; Dietary intake; BMI; Child and family characteristics

Funding

  1. Nestle Nutrition (Nestec Ltd.)
  2. Metagenics Inc.
  3. AXA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Definitions and assessment methods of fussy/picky eating are heterogeneous and remain unclear. We aimed to identify an eating behavior profile reflecting fussy/picky eating in children and to describe characteristics of fussy eaters. Methods: Eating behavior was assessed with the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ) in 4914 4-year olds in a population-based birth cohort study. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was used to identify eating behavior profiles based on CEBQ subscales. Results and discussion: We found a fussy eating behavior profile (5.6% of children) characterized by high food fussiness, slowness in eating, and satiety responsiveness in combination with low enjoyment of food and food responsiveness. Fussy eaters were more often from families with low household income than non-fussy eaters (42% vs. 31.8% respectively; chi(2)(1) = 9.97, p < .01). When they were 14 months old, fussy eaters had a lower intake of vegetables (t [3008] = 2.42, p < .05) and fish (t [169.77] = 2.40, p < .05) but higher intake of savory snacks (t [153.69] = -2.03, p < .05) and sweets (t [3008] = -2.30, p < .05) compared to non-fussy eaters. Also, fussy eaters were more likely to be underweight at 4 years of age (19.3%) than non-fussy eaters (12.3%; chi(2)(1) = 7.71, p < .01). Conclusions: A distinct fussy eating behavior profile was identified by LPA, which was related to family and child characteristics, food intake, and BMI. This behavior profile might be used in future research and the development of interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available