4.6 Review

Do children and their parents eat a similar diet? Resemblance in child and parental dietary intake: systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 177-189

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2009.095901

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [1R03HD058077-01A1, R03HD058077-01A1S1]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [R01DK81335-01A1]
  3. National Institute on Aging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives Parents are believed to have a strong influence on children's eating behaviours. However, previous findings on child-parent resemblance in dietary intakes are mixed. We systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the association (correlations) based on published studies. Methods We searched related studies published since 1980 and found 24 studies meeting inclusion criteria for review and 15 for meta-regression analysis. We compared the associations between parent-child pairs, nutrients, over time and by dietary assessment method. Results Most studies were based on small samples. Overall, they suggest a moderate or weak association, but findings varied remarkably. Our meta-analysis showed that average Fisher's transformed correlations were 0.20 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.28) for fat (% energy); for energy, 0.21 (0.18 to 0.24). The correlations varied by parent-child pairs, dietary assessment and countries. Food frequency questionnaires or mixed approaches yielded lower correlation than 24-h recalls or food records. Child self-reported intakes showed weaker correlation and better methodology quality showed stronger correlation in fat intake (% energy), which also became weaker over time. Conclusions Overall, the resemblance is weak, and it varied considerably across studies, nutrients, foods and parent-child pairs.

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