OBJECTIVE: According to the Family Ecological Model (FEM), parenting behaviours are shaped by the contexts in which families are embedded. In the present study, we utilize the FEM to guide a mixed-methods community assessment and summarize the results. Additionally, we discuss the utility of the FEM and outline possible improvements. DESIGN: Using a cross-sectional design, qualitative and quantitative methods were used to examine the ecologies of parents’ cognitions and behaviours specific to children’s diet, physical activity and screen-based behaviours. Results were mapped onto constructs outlined in the FEM. SETTING: The study took place in five Head Start centres in a small north-eastern city. The community assessment was part of a larger study to develop and evaluate a family-centred obesity prevention programme for low-income families. SUBJECTS: Participants included eighty-nine low-income parents/caregivers of children enrolled in Head Start. RESULTS: Parents reported a broad range of factors affecting their parenting cognitions and behaviours. Intrafamilial factors included educational and cultural backgrounds, family size and a lack of social support from partners. Organizational factors included staff stability at key organizations, a lack of service integration and differing school routines. Community factors included social connectedness to neighbours/friends, shared norms around parenting and the availability of safe public housing and play spaces. Policy- and media-related factors included requirements of public assistance programmes, back-to-work policies and children’s exposure to food advertisements. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, the FEM was refined to create an evidence-based,temporally structured logic model to support and guide family-centred research in childhood obesity prevention.
OBJECTIVE: According to the Family Ecological Model (FEM), parenting behaviours are shaped by the contexts in which families are embedded. In the present study, we utilize the FEM to guide a mixed-methods community assessment and summarize the results. Additionally, we discuss the utility of the FEM and outline possible improvements. DESIGN: Using a cross-sectional design, qualitative and quantitative methods were used to examine the ecologies of parents’ cognitions and behaviours specific to children’s diet, physical activity and screen-based behaviours. Results were mapped onto constructs outlined in the FEM. SETTING: The study took place in five Head Start centres in a small north-eastern city. The community assessment was part of a larger study to develop and evaluate a family-centred obesity prevention programme for low-income families. SUBJECTS:Participants included eighty-nine low-income parents/caregivers of children enrolled in Head Start. RESULTS: Parents reported a broad range of factors affecting their parenting cognitions and behaviours. Intrafamilial factors included educational and cultural backgrounds, family size and a lack of social support from partners. Organizational factors included staff stability at key organizations, a lack of service integration and differing school routines. Community factors included social connectedness to neighbours/friends, shared norms around parenting and the availability of safe public housing and play spaces. Policy- and media-related factors included requirements of public assistance programmes, back-to-work policies and children’s exposure to food advertisements. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, the FEM was refined to create an evidence-based,temporally structured logic model to support and guide family-centred research in childhood obesity prevention.
Authors: M Viswanathan; A Ammerman; E Eng; G Garlehner; K N Lohr; D Griffith; S Rhodes; C Samuel-Hodge; S Maty; L Lux; L Webb; S F Sutton; T Swinson; A Jackman; L Whitener Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) Date: 2004-08
Authors: James W Anderson; Pat Baird; Richard H Davis; Stefanie Ferreri; Mary Knudtson; Ashraf Koraym; Valerie Waters; Christine L Williams Journal: Nutr Rev Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 7.110
Authors: Lisa Bailey-Davis; Melissa N Poulsen; Annemarie G Hirsch; Jonathan Pollak; Thomas A Glass; Brian S Schwartz Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Michelle Cavanagh; Janine Jurkowski; Christine Bozlak; Julia Hastings; Amy Klein Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 4.022