MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Parental knowledge, perceptions and consumption of milk and alternatives relates to intakes of young children 2–8 y of age

2016· article· en· W4389026066 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Neil R. Brett, Catherine A. Vanstone, Jonathon L. Maguire, Frank Rauch, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalMcGill University
FundersDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsMedicineFood frequency questionnaireEnvironmental healthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A low intake of milk and alternatives is concerning for children, since vitamin D, calcium and other nutrients in these foods are important for growth and development. Canadian research is ambiguous on how parental nutrition knowledge impacts the dietary intake of their children. Because of this, the objective was to assess the relationship between parental knowledge/perceptions of milk and alternatives and the intake of their child. This was a cross sectional analysis, during April and May 2015, of healthy participants (BMI z‐score > −2 and < 2), 2–8 y (n= 49) from a 6 month randomized vitamin D trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02387892) in Montreal, Canada. The self‐reported parental knowledge and perceptions survey had 2 sections, one about general knowledge and perceptions and the second had specific questions about their child. Milk and alternatives and vitamin D intake were assessed using a validated 30 day food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Pearson partial correlations, Bland‐Altman plots of agreement and mixed model ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc testing were used. The participants (5.6 ± 1.9 y) were 59% (29/49) male, had mean BMI z‐scores of 0.65 ± 0.84, and only 2% (1/49) of children did not reach the recommended 2 servings/day of milk and alternatives by Canada's Food Guide (CFG). Sixty seven percent of families had incomes above $65,000 Canadian and 70% of parents had university level education. There was a significant partial correlation between parental milk and alternatives intake and FFQ child milk and alternatives intake (r = 0.59, p = 0.001). Also, when parents consumed milk and alternatives at meals with their child, children consumed significantly more servings of this food group throughout the day (). There was a small bias (0.314, 95% CI: −2.56 to 3.19) between the FFQ milk product intake and the perceived milk and alternatives intakes (). Though 82% of parents correctly identified CFG serving sizes of fluid milk, less than 25% correctly identified the serving sizes of yogurt and cheese (). Sixty three percent of parents thought the number of servings of milk and alternatives that children needed per day was higher than the CFG recommendations. Non‐white children consumed significantly more (p < 0.05) milk and alternatives than white children. Age and sex however, did not associate with milk and alternatives intake. These results suggest that parental milk and alternatives intake as well as knowledge of CFG may have a significant impact on the amount of milk and alternatives served to children. Future longitudinal research should test whether educating parents about milk and alternatives significantly changes the amount of these products they serve to their young children. Support or Funding Information This work was supported by funding from Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Canada Research Chairs. Dairy Farmers of Canada did not have a role in design, implementation, analysis or interpretation. Proportions of parents who correctly identified Canada's Food Guide (CFG) servings and serving sizes. Question Proportion of parents correctly answering CFG serving size of fluid milk 82% CFG serving size of yogurt: Solid 16% Beverage 24% CFG serving size of cheese 13% CFG recommended servings/day of milk and alternatives 32% Servings/day for 2–8 year olds

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→