Designing Child Nutrition Interventions to Engage Fathers: Qualitative Analysis of Interviews and Co-Design Workshops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fathers play a pivotal role in parenting and child feeding, but they remain underrepresented in intervention studies, especially those focused on disadvantaged populations. A better understanding of fathers' experiences and needs regarding support access and child nutrition information in the context of disadvantage can inform future interventions engaging fathers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore fathers' experiences; perceived enablers; and barriers to accessing support and information related to parenting, child feeding, and nutrition and to co-design principles for tailoring child nutrition interventions to engage fathers. METHODS: Australian fathers of children aged 6 months to 5 years with lived experience of disadvantage participated in semistructured interviews and co-design workshops, primarily conducted via videoconference. Creative analogies were used to guide the ideation process in the workshops. RESULTS: A total of 25 interviews and 3 workshops (n=10 participants) were conducted, with data analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation-Behavior model. The interview data illuminated factors influencing fathers' initiation in seeking support for parenting, child feeding, and nutrition, including their experiences. It highlighted fathers' diverse information needs and the importance of an inclusive environment and encouragement. Enablers and barriers in accessing support related to parenting and child nutrition were identified at the individual (eg, personal goals and resource constraints), interpersonal (family support and false beliefs about men's caregiving role), organizational (inadequate fathering support), and systemic levels (father-inclusive practice and policy). Digital data collection methods enabled Australia-wide participation, overcoming work and capacity barriers. Videoconferencing technology was effectively used to engage fathers creatively. Key principles for engaging fathers were co-designed from the workshop data. Interventions and resources need to be father specific, child centered, and culturally appropriate; promote empowerment and collaboration; and provide actionable and accessible strategies on the what and how of child feeding. Fathers preferred multiformat implementation, which harnesses technology-based design (eg, websites and mobile apps) and gamification. It should be tailored to the child's age and targeted at fathers using comprehensive promotion strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Fathers faced barriers to accessing support and information related to parenting and feeding that may not adequately address their needs. Future interventions could integrate the co-designed principles to engage fathers effectively. These findings have implications for health service delivery and policy development, promoting father-inclusive practice.
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 | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".