Associations Between Coparenting Quality, the Home Food Environment, and Child’s Body Mass Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although positive coparenting, or how parents relate during childrearing, is known to support children’s socioemotional development, the role of coparenting in supporting children’s healthy eating and growth is poorly understood. This study examined associations between coparenting quality, the home food environment, and young children’s body mass index (BMI). Methods: Cross-sectional data were obtained from 290 mothers and their 3-year-old children who participated in the Sprout study. Mothers who indicated they had a coparent in their household completed surveys to assess coparenting quality, food parenting practices, family mealtime routines and structure, and home food availability. Mothers also reported the foods served at two typical meals, and a healthy meal index (HMI) score was calculated to assess the nutritional quality of meals. Children’s height and weight were measured and used to calculate BMI z-scores (BMIz). Results: Mothers who reported more positive coparenting also reported providing children more guidance for healthy eating (β = 0.15, p < 0.001), less use of food to control children’s emotions (β = −0.15, p < 0.01), less use of food as a reward (β = −0.27, p < 0.01), more structured mealtimes (β = 0.22, p < 0.001), and more household availability of fruits and vegetables (β = 0.11, p < 0.01). Mothers who reported greater coparent agreement on childrearing also had children with lower BMIz (β = −0.11, p = 0.03). Mothers who reported greater endorsement of their partner’s childrearing competency had a higher mean HMI score (β = 1.82, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Among dual-parent, highly resourced families with young children, stronger coparenting practices were associated with several food-related parenting practices that support healthy eating and weight among young children.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".