4.7 Article

Adherence to Infant Feeding Guidelines in the First Foods New Zealand Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15214650

关键词

infant; feeding guidelines; adherence; breastfeeding; complementary feeding; food group; salt; sugar; beverages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated adherence to infant feeding guidelines in New Zealand and found that most infants met recommendations for introducing solid foods, but the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding could be improved, indicating a need for more support in New Zealand families.
Infant feeding guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to support optimal infant health, growth, and development, and exploring adherence to guidelines is a useful way of assessing diet quality. The aim of this study was to determine adherence to the recently updated Ministry of Health Healthy Eating Guidelines for New Zealand Babies and Toddlers (0-2 years old). Data were obtained from First Foods New Zealand, a multicentre observational study of 625 infants aged 7.0-10.0 months. Caregivers completed two 24-h diet recalls and a demographic and feeding questionnaire. Nearly all caregivers (97.9%) initiated breastfeeding, 37.8% exclusively breastfed to around six months of age, and 66.2% were currently breastfeeding (mean age 8.4 months). Most caregivers met recommendations for solid food introduction, including appropriate age (75.4%), iron-rich foods (88.3%), pureed textures (80.3%), and spoon-feeding (74.1%). Infants consumed vegetables (63.2%) and fruit (53.9%) more frequently than grain foods (49.5%), milk and milk products (38.6%), and meat and protein-rich foods (31.8%). Most caregivers avoided inappropriate beverages (93.9%) and adding salt (76.5%) and sugar (90.6%). Our findings indicated that while most infants met the recommendations for the introduction of appropriate solid foods, the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding could be improved, indicating that New Zealand families may need more support.

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