The influence of parental encouragement and caring about healthy eating on children’s diet quality and body weights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In order to mitigate childhood obesity, evidence on what influences children's health behaviours is needed to inform new health promotion strategies. The present study investigated the association between parental practices and their child's diet and body weight status. DESIGN: Grade 5 students and their parents completed health surveys. Parents were asked how much they 'encourage their child to eat healthy foods' and how much they 'personally care about healthy eating'. Children's diet quality and vegetable and fruit intake were assessed using an FFQ. Children's heights and weights were measured to determine body weight status. Mixed-effects regression models were used to determine the influence of parental responses on the outcomes of interest. SETTING: Elementary schools across the province of Alberta, Canada. SUBJECTS: Grade 5 students (aged 10 and 11 years; n 8388) and their parent(s). RESULTS: Most parents reported caring about healthy eating and encouraging their child to eat healthy foods at least quite a lot. Children whose parents who cared or encouraged 'very much' compared with 'quite a lot' were more likely have better diet quality and were less likely to be overweight. Children whose parents both cared and encouraged 'very much' compared with 'quite a lot' scored an average of 2·06 points higher on the diet quality index (β=2·06; 95 % CI 1·45, 2·66). CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion strategies that aim for a high level of parental interest and encouragement of their children to eat healthy foods may improve diet quality and prevent overweight among children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".