4.5 Article

Food choices of tactile defensive children

Journal

NUTRITION
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 14-19

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2004.09.004

Keywords

eating habits of children; food choices of children; food questionnaire; food textures; fussy eaters; oral defensiveness; picky eaters; sensory defensiveness; tactile defensiveness; texture of foods

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We explored whether tactile defensive children have picky eating habits because fussy or picky eaters are a general problem, to parents and different health professionals. Methods: Children (n = 62) of both sexes, ages 3 to 10 y, were assigned to an experimental tactile defensive (TD) group (n = 29) or a control non-TD group (n = 33). A questionnaire on eating habits was compiled and given to parents for completion during personal interviews (children were screened with a checklist and evaluated for tactile defensiveness with the Winnie Dunn Caregiver profile questionnaire). Results: This research confirmed that the eating habits and food choices of TD and non-TD children differ significantly. TD, children had a fair to poor appetite. They hesitated to eat unfamiliar foods, did not eat at other people's houses, and refused certain foods because of the smell and temperature. They also had a problem eating vegetables. They often gagged and/or bit their inner lips and cheeks. The results showed a definite difference in the limited selection of foods that TD children chose and a pronounced aversion toward textures or consistencies, smells, and temperatures of food as compared with integrated children. Conclusions: Fussy or picky eaters should be evaluated more widely than to treat only the feeding problem. Tactile or oral defensiveness can be treated. This report underlines the team approach of health professionals. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available