4.3 Article

A pilot survey of socio-economic differences in child-feeding behaviours among parents of primary-school children

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages 1030-1036

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980007001401

Keywords

child; feeding; behaviour; parent; weight

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Parents' child-feeding behaviours have been implicated in children's food choices and weight, but little is known about the social class distribution of parents' child-feeding behaviours in the UK. The present study compares parents' self-reported child-feeding behaviours in two socio-economically contrasting areas. Design: A cross-sectional survey using the Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire. Mean scores were calcualted for five child-feeding behaviours: control over eating, emotional feeding, encouragement/prompting, instrumental feeding and restriction. Parents' self-reported child-feeding behaviours were compared with their sciodemogrphic characteristics. Setting: Three primary schools in two contrasting electoral wards of Sheffield, UK. Subjects: Two hundred and ten parents of children aged 4 to 11 years, recruited from a convenience sample. Results: Parents in the least deprived ward reported using all five types of child-feeding behaviour more frequently than parents in the most deprived ward. After adjusting for parent sex, parent age, single parent status, employment status and level of education, emotional feeding was the only behaviour showing any evidence of a difference between wards. The most frequently used behaviours were control, encouragement and restriction - behaviours that might be used to directly influence children's food intake and weight. Conclusions: Child-feeding behaviours differ between areas within a single city and with a largely white population, and this longitudinal studies are needed to furtehr ivnestigate the potential role of child-feeding behaviours in childhood overweight and obesity.

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