Parenting Styles and Family Contributors to the Development of Dietary Behaviors in Arab Children Ages 6-10 Years Old Living in the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting styles and family contributors are the main determinants of obesity risk in children. To date, no research has been reported on parenting styles/practices and family contributors to the development of dietary behaviors in Arab children living in the US. The objectives of this exploratory mixed-method study were to collect data on parenting feeding styles (Caregiver’s Feeding Style Questionnaire- CFSQ) of Arab mothers and family contributors (Family Nutrition Physical Activity- FNPA) to the development of dietary behaviors in their children; and to collect data on Arab mothers' challenges and strategies to promote healthier dietary behaviors in their children. Although all Arab mothers (n=23) self-assessed that they were authoritative, only seven mothers were categorized as having an authoritative feeding style based on their CFSQ scores. The FNPA overall mean was 3.15, indicating less obesogenic family environment and behaviors. Across focus groups, barriers to desirable dietary intake included low vegetable intake and child being distracted by sweets, junk foods, and technology. All mothers wanted their children to have healthier dietary habits and used positive and negative approaches to achieve that. Positive approaches included no pressure to eat and providing healthier alternative foods. Negative approaches included pressuring the child to eat and rewarding with sweets and technology. In correlation analyses, the mother's BMI was significantly correlated with the child's BMI z-scores (r = 0.325, p = 0.005). This study can guide future efforts in assessing parenting style and assessing the home environment regarding the dietary behaviors of Arab families.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".