Child and Maternal Factors Associated with Feeding Practices in Children with Poor Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of adequate growth and healthy eating behaviors depends on nutritious food and responsive feeding practices. Our study examined (1) the relationship between maternal concern about child weight or perceived feeding difficulties and their feeding practices, and (2) the moderating role of child temperament and maternal mental health on their feeding practices. A cross-sessional study included mother–child dyads (n = 98) from a tertiary growth and feeding clinic. Children had a mean age of 12.7 ± 5.0 months and a mean weight-for-age z-score of −2.0 ± 1.3. Responsive and controlling feeding practices were measured with the Infant Feeding Styles Questionnaire. Spearman correlation and moderation analysis were performed. Maternal concern about child weight and perceived feeding difficulties were negatively correlated with responsive feeding (r = −0.40, −0.48, p < 0.001). A greater concern about child weight or perceived feeding difficulties was associated with greater use of pressure feeding practices when effortful control was low (B = 0.49, t = 2.47, p = 0.01; B = −0.27, p = 0.008). Maternal anxiety had a significant moderation effect on the relationship between feeding difficulty and pressure feeding (B = −0.04, p = 0.009). Higher maternal concern about child weight and perceived feeding difficulties were associated with less responsive satiety feeding beliefs and behaviors. Both child effortful control and maternal anxiety influenced the relationship between weight and feeding concerns and the use of pressure 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".