4.3 Article

Associations of parents' use of food as reward with children's eating behaviour andBMIin a population-based cohort

Journal

PEDIATRIC OBESITY
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijpo.12662

Keywords

BMI; eating behaviour; emotional eating; fussy; instrumental feeding; using food as reward

Categories

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council [201806240125]
  2. Dutch Diabetes Foundation [2017.81.002]
  3. Dutch Heart Foundation [2017T013]
  4. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development [543003109, 636320005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Parents' use of food as reward has been linked to children's dietary intake, but the association with children's eating behaviour and overweight risk is less clear. Objectives To examine the temporal association of using food as reward with eating behaviour, body mass index (BMI) and weight status of children. Methods Participants were 3642 children of the population-based Generation R Study in the Netherlands (8.3% overweight/obese). Repeated assessments were collected at child ages 4 and 9 years, including measured anthropometrics and parent reports on feeding practises and eating behaviour. Results Linear regressions and cross-lagged models indicated that parents' use of food as reward at child age 4 years predicted Emotional Overeating and Picky Eating at age 9 years. Reversely, higher Emotional Overeating and Food Responsiveness scores were associated with more use of food as reward over time. Using food as reward was not associated with children's satiety response, BMI or overweight risk. Conclusions A vicious cycle may appear in which children who display food approach behaviour are rewarded with food by their parents, which in turn might contribute to the development of unhealthy eating habits (emotional eating, fussiness). These findings warrant further research, to facilitate evidence-based recommendations for parents.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available