Relationship between Stress and Feeding Behaviors in Parents of Children with Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Controlling feeding practices are associated with negative child eating behaviors and an increased risk of obesity. Parental stress may be related to feeding practices. Children with developmental disabilities have increased obesity prevalence, and families may also experience increased stress. This study examined the relationship between family stress and parental feeding practices in children with developmental disabilities and how concern for the child's weight may moderate this relationship. Methods: Secondary analysis using a descriptive cross-sectional design was employed. Parents of children aged 5 to 15 years, with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Down syndrome (DS), or spina bifida (SB) were recruited nationally. Demographics, the Child Feeding Questionnaire, and the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress were completed online. Analysis included regression with an empirical Bayesian effects model. Results: Five hundred twenty-three parents, 186 (ASD), 173 (DS) and 164 (SB), participated. Family stressors were associated with the use of controlling feeding practices. Direct effects included: (1) physical incapacitation on restriction and pressure to eat (ASD and DS); (2) pessimism (ASD) and concerns about child overweight (SB) on pressure to eat; and (3) parent/family problems on restriction (DS). Concern for child overweight moderated these relationships and resulted in two interactions (DS and SB). Conclusion: Understanding the relationship of family stressors with parental feeding practices and the role of parental concern for child overweight can potentially optimize feeding in this high-risk population. This study highlights the need to provide family-centered care with awareness of stress and its potential association with daily activities and children's health.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".