4.7 Review

Pathways of Association from Stress to Obesity in Early Childhood

期刊

OBESITY
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1117-1124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.22155

关键词

-

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Healthy Eating Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to critically review the literature on early life stress in relation to obesity in humans, including the multiple biological and behavioral mechanisms through which early life stress exposure (birth to the age of 5 years) may associate with obesity risk during childhood. MethodsA review of the literature was conducted to identify studies on associations between early childhood stress and risk for obesity and the mechanisms of association. Multiple databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, Google Scholar) were used in the search as well as a snowball search strategy. All study designs were included. ResultsEarly life stress and adverse childhood experiences are associated with obesity and overweight in adults. Evidence is less consistent in children. Studies vary in the nature of the stress examined (e.g., chronic vs. acute), sample characteristics, and study designs. Longitudinal studies are needed, as the effects of early life stress exposure may not emerge until later in the life-span. Early life stress exposure is associated with biological and behavioral pathways that may increase risk for childhood obesity. ConclusionsThere is evidence that early life stress is associated with multiple biological and behavioral pathways in children that may increase risk for later obesity. Little work has detailed the interconnections among these mechanisms across development or identified potential moderators of the association. Mapping the mechanisms connecting early life stress exposure to obesity risk in young children longitudinally should be a priority for obesity researchers. Recommendations for developmentally sensitive approaches to research that can inform obesity prevention strategies are presented.

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