4.7 Article

Sociodemographic Differences and Infant Dietary Patterns

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 134, 期 5, 页码 E1387-E1398

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-1045

关键词

infant; dietary patterns; feeding; nutrition; growth; epidemiology

资金

  1. Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York at Buffalo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To identify dietary patterns in US infants at age 6 and 12 months, sociodemographic differences in these patterns, and their associations with infant growth from age 6 to 12 months. METHODS: We analyzed a subsample (760 boys and 795 girls) of the Infant Feeding Practices Study II (2005-2007). Mothers reported their infants' intakes of 18 types of foods in the past 7 days, which were used to derive dietary patterns at ages 6 and 12 months by principal component analysis. RESULTS: Similar dietary patterns were identified at ages 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, infants of mothers who had low education or non-Hispanic African American mothers (vs non-Hispanic white) had a higher score on High sugar/fat/protein dietary pattern. Both High sugar/fat/protein and High dairy/regular cereal patterns at 6 months were associated with a smaller increase in length-for-age z score (adjusted beta per 1 unit dietary pattern score, -1.36 [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.35 to -0.37] and -0.30 [-0.54 to -0.06], respectively), while with greater increase in BMI z score (1.00 [0.11 to 1.89] and 0.32 [0.10 to 0.53], respectively) from age 6 to 12 months. The Formula pattern was associated with greater increase in BMI z score (0.25 [0.09 to 0.40]). The Infant guideline solids pattern (vegetables, fruits, baby cereal, and meat) was not associated with change in length-for-age or BMI z score. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct dietary patterns exist among US infants, vary by maternal race/ethnicity and education, and have differential influences on infant growth. Use of Infant guideline solids with prolonged breastfeeding is a promising healthy diet for infants after age 6 months.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据