Parent and School-Age Children's Food Preparation Cognitions and Behaviors Guide Recommendations for Future Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate parent and child food preparation cognitions and behaviors qualitatively to create recommendations for nutrition programs targeting these audiences. DESIGN: Focus groups were conducted in community settings with school-age children (n = 37) and parents (n = 38) in Florida, West Virginia, and New Jersey. SETTING: Community settings in Florida, West Virginia, and New Jersey. PARTICIPANTS: School-age children (n = 37) and parents (n = 38). PHENOMENON OF INTEREST: Factors influencing food preparation of school-aged children and their parents to inform Social Cognitive Theory-based recommendations. ANALYSIS: Content analysis. RESULTS: Parents believed that child involvement in meal preparation was important for developing cooking skills, responsibility, and self-esteem, but noted that involvement was limited by time scarcity and concern regarding child safety in the kitchen. Parents recommended having children engage in age-appropriate food preparation activities, such as packing their own snacks. Children echoed parents' beliefs, stating they would need to know how to cook later in life. Many children acknowledged being a part of meal preparation by setting the table and helping grocery shop. Food preparation's link to improving diet quality was not mentioned by parents or children. To increase involvement, children suggested that parents demonstrate skills, select age-appropriate tasks for them, and reward them for helping. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This research provides insight into parents' and children's food preparation cognitions (eg, beliefs, attitudes) and behaviors and assembles results into recommendations that may guide decisions during nutrition intervention development and potentially improve nutrition intervention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".