4.4 Article

Parents' and kids' eating away from home cognitions

期刊

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
卷 121, 期 5, 页码 1168-1182

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2018-0431

关键词

Focus groups; Parents; Children; Social cognitive theory; Eating away from home; Nutrition education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose -Eating away from home frequency is increasing and is linked with numerous adverse health outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to inform the development of health promotion materials for improving eating away from home behaviors by elucidating related parent and child cognitions. Design/ methodology/ approach -Parents (n = 37) and children (n = 35; ages 6-11 years) participated in focus group discussions, based on social cognitive theory. Data were content analyzed to detect themes. Findings -Many parents were concerned about what children ate away from home, however, others were less concerned because these occasions were infrequent. Lack of time and busy schedules were the most common barriers to eating fewer meals away from home. The greatest barrier to ensuring children ate healthfully away from home was parents were not present to monitor children's intake. To overcome this, parents supervised what kids packed for lunch, provided caregivers instruction on foods to provide, and taught kids to make healthy choices. Kids understood that frequently eating away from home resulted in less healthful behaviors. Barriers for kids to eat healthy when away from home were tempting foods and eating in places with easy access to less healthy food. Kids reported they could take responsibility by requesting healthy foods and asking parents to help them eat healthfully away from home by providing healthy options and guidance. Originality/ value -This study is one of the first to qualitatively analyze parent and child eating away from home cognitions. It provides insights for tailoring nutrition education interventions to be more responsive to these audiences' needs.

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

4.4
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