Barriers and facilitators of household provision of dairy and plant-based dairy alternatives in families with preschool-age children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators of the provision of dairy and plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDA) by parents of preschool-age children, a previously unexplored area of research. DESIGN: Five focus groups of parents were conducted and audio-recorded. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: University of Guelph, in Guelph, ON, Canada in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two (n 19 mothers, 13 fathers) parents of preschool-age children. Most (59 %) were university or college educated. RESULTS: Facilitators common to both dairy and PBDA provision included perceived nutritional benefits, such as dairy's Ca, protein and fat content, and PBDA's protein content, and the perception that PBDA adds variety to the diet. Facilitators unique to dairy v. PBDA provision included the taste of, familiarity with, and greater variety and accessibility of dairy products, specifically child-friendly products. A facilitator unique to PBDA v. dairy provision was ethical concerns regarding dairy farming practices. Barriers common to both dairy and PBDA provision included perceived cost, concerns regarding the environmental impact of production, and high sugar content. Barriers specific to dairy included use of antibiotics and hormones in dairy production. A barrier specific to PBDA was the use of pesticides. CONCLUSION: Behaviour change messages targeting parents of preschoolers can emphasise the nutrition non-equivalence of dairy and some PBDA and can educate parents on sources of affordable, unsweetened dairy and PBDA.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".