4.7 Article

Reasons Low-Income Parents Offer Snacks to Children: How Feeding Rationale Influences Snack Frequency and Adherence to Dietary Recommendations

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 5982-5999

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu7075265

关键词

snacks; parenting; childhood obesity prevention; child feeding

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion [U18DP003370]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [T32 CA 0900]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although American children snack more than ever before, the parental role in promoting snacking is not well understood. In 2012-2013 at baseline in an intervention study to prevent childhood obesity in low-income Massachusetts communities, n = 271 parents of children aged 2-12 years completed surveys regarding nutritive and non-nutritive reasons they offered children snacks, demographics, and dietary factors. An analysis of variance demonstrated that parents reported offering snacks (mean/week; standard deviation (SD)) for nutritive reasons like promoting growth (x = 2.5; SD 2.2) or satisfying hunger (x = 2.4; SD 2.1) almost twice as often as non-nutritive reasons like keeping a child quiet (x = 0.7; SD 1.5) or celebrating events/holidays (x = 0.8; SD 1.1). Parents reported giving young children (2-5 years) more snacks to reward behavior (1.9 vs. 1.1, p < 0.001), keep quiet (1.0 vs. 0.5, p < 0.001), and celebrate achievements (1.7 vs. 1.0, p < 0.001) than parents of older children (6-12 years). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to obtain adjusted odds ratios, which indicated reduced child adherence to dietary recommendations when parents offered snacks to reward behavior (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.83; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.70-0.99), celebrate events/holidays (OR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.52-0.99), or achievements (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98). Parental intentions around child snacking are likely important targets for obesity prevention efforts.

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