Fathers' food parenting: A scoping review of the literature from 1990 to 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While food parenting is a robust area of inquiry, studies have largely focused on mothers. Given the diversity of family structures today and increases in fathers' engagement in caregiving, fathers' food parenting warrants attention. OBJECTIVE: We present a scoping review of research on fathers' food parenting (1990-2019). Eligible studies included peer-reviewed research published in English documenting fathers' food parenting and presenting results for fathers separate from mothers. RESULTS: Seventy-seven eligible studies were identified. Most studies were based in the U.S (63.6%) and utilized a cross-sectional design (93.5%). Approximately half of studies used a validated measure of food parenting (54.5%) and slightly less than 30% utilized theory (28.6%). Many studies did not report information on fathers' residential status (37.7%) or their relationship to the target child (biological vs social) (63.6%). Content analysis of study findings showed that: fathers are involved in food parenting, but at lower levels than mothers; there are few consistent mother-father differences in food parenting practices; and fathers' controlling food parenting is linked with negative nutrition outcomes in children while responsive food parenting is linked with positive child outcomes. CONCLUSION: To better inform family interventions to prevent childhood obesity, future food parenting research with fathers should recognize the diversity of family structures and utilize prospective, theory-based, designs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".