The association between parents' stress and parental feeding practices and feeding styles: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the extended UNICEF framework of early childhood nutrition, parents' stress is associated with parental feeding style. However, no comprehensive review has examined the association between parents' stress and feeding styles and practices. The objective of our review was to synthesise the current literature examining the association between parents' stress and their feeding practices and/or styles, among parents of children ≤ 5 years old. We searched; MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO and CINAHL from 2019 to 2021. Two investigators independently extracted relevant data and assessed the study quality and the certainty of evidence. Data were pooled using generic inverse variance with fixed effects (<5 comparisons) or random effects (≥5 comparisons) and expressed as correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Between study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and quantified with I 2 . We identified 6 longitudinal and 11 cross‐sectional studies, of which 4 studies provided sufficient data to be pooled. A very small correlation between general stress and restrictive feeding practices was observed ( r = 0.06 [95% CI: 0.01−0.12]; no substantial heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0.00%, P Q < 0.85, very low certainty). No correlation between general stress and feeding pressure was identified ( r = 0.06 [95% CI: −0.02 to 0.15]). Results showed that both general and parenting stress were associated with suboptimal breastfeeding practices and unresponsive feeding styles. Conclusion: This study demonstrated a low‐to‐moderate quality of literature for the inclusion of parents' stress in the extended UNICEF care model of child nutrition. Future research needs to explore this relationship longitudinally and in ethnic diverse populations to inform tailored interventions that promote responsive feeding practices.
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 | 0.020 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".