Prospective associations between parental feeding practices and children's oral processing behaviours
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Previous research demonstrated that faster eating rates are linked with increased intake of energy during a meal. Here, we examined whether within-meal parental feeding practices show cross-sectional and prospective associations with children's oral processing behaviours and whether the previously demonstrated association between faster eating rates and higher energy intakes varies by parental feeding practices. A subset (n = 155) of children and their mothers from the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes cohort participated in an ad libitum meal at age 4.5 years. Children's oral processing behaviours (eating rate, bite size, chews per gram, oral exposure time, and meal duration) and parental feeding practices (autonomy-supporting and coercive prompts, restrictions, hurrying, and slowing) were recorded during the meal. Subsequently, 94 of the children participated in a follow-up meal without their mothers at age 6 years. Parental feeding practices were not consistently associated with child oral processing behaviours overall. However, exploratory post hoc analyses revealed some sex differences. The mothers of girls with faster eating rates, larger bite sizes, and fewer chews were more likely to use hurrying, slowing, and restrictions, but similar associations were not observed among boys. Children who had the most problematic eating style and were eating fast and for long experienced more restrictions, instructions to slow down, and prompts. Faster eating rates were linked with the highest energy intakes if children were additionally prompted to eat. Prospective analyses showed that children who were more often prompted using coercive techniques and less frequently hurried at age 4.5 years had faster eating rates at 6 years and a larger increase in eating rates between ages 4.5 and 6 years but did not consume more energy. Although the direction of these associations cannot be assumed, these exploratory analyses suggest sex differences in the associations between feeding practices and oral processing behaviours and highlight the potential role of parents in the development of children's oral processing behaviours.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».