Feeding behavior in caregivers of 6- to 24-month-old infants and young children: a cross-sectional study from a district in a first-tier city in the southwestern region of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify the correlation between feeding behavior of caregivers and feeding outcome of 6-24 months old infants and young children in a first-tier city in the southwestern region of China. The influencing factors of feeding behavior were explored in this study. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 3 community health service centers in Chengdu, China from November 2017 to January 2018. A total of 725 infants and their caregivers participated in this study. Infant and young child feeding index (ICFI) was used to evaluate food preparation behavior. A questionnaire designed based on responsive feeding behavior (RFB) was used to evaluate the interaction behavior in the feeding process. The Z-score and the Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH-FS) were used to evaluate the feeding outcomes. RESULTS: The prevalence of short stature and feeding difficulties was 12.1% and 61.5%, respectively, among infants and young children. The RFB score negatively correlated with feeding difficulties but did not statistically significantly correlate with malnutrition rate. The RFB score was influenced by caregivers' relationship with the child and health belief, including self-efficiency, benefit perception, attention to searching information on websites, and attention to employing professional nurses. ICFI negatively correlated with the rate of underweight but did not statistically significantly correlate with feeding difficulties. ICFI was influenced by the caregivers' age, registered residence, and health belief, including obstacle perception and attention to reading a book on feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Searching the information regarding RFB on websites and making a feeding plan with the help of professional nurses may enhance caregivers' RFB. Convenient and attractive reading materials might help caregivers overcome obstacles and adopt better feeding behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".