Parental Feeding Practices in Relation to Low Diet Quality and Obesity among LSES Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships between parental feeding practices, diet quality, overweight, and obesity among low-socioeconomic status (LSES) preschoolers. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A cohort of preschool children (aged 5-6) and their mothers was recruited from November 2009 to December 2009. To overcome seasonal and personal variation in dietary intake, 3 replications of the Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) and a parental Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ) were obtained in person at baseline, 3 months from baseline, and 6 months from baseline. Anthropometric measurements were attained at preschool class on the same dates. Scores of the 12 factors of the CFPQ were calculated and related to dietary intake. Correlation coefficients between the mean energy and fat intake and CFPQ factors' scores were calculated. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc analyses was used to compare nutrient intake and anthropometric measures across CFPQ tertiles. RESULTS: Preschoolers (n = 63), aged 64.4 ± 5.0 months (47% boys), were recruited. Unhealthy feeding practices including food as a reward for good behavior and food restriction for promoting health were associated with increased consumption of junk food, sweets, and snacks. Among healthy feeding practices, encouraging balance and food variety and healthy eating modeled by parents were associated with increased vegetable consumption and smaller waist circumference. Weight was negatively associated with factors that reflect parental pressure and food restriction for weight control. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that certain feeding practices relate to a higher diet quality and lower weight and waist circumference. These practices may be encouraged in order to improve diet quality and prevent overweight and obesity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".