| Literature DB >> 26652259 |
Ulla Hoppu1, Mira Prinz2, Pauliina Ojansivu1, Oskar Laaksonen2, Mari A Sandell3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children use all of their senses when exploring new foods, and sensory-based food education provides new possibilities for promoting healthy dietary habits.Entities:
Keywords: berries; children; food education; kindergarten; sensory; vegetables
Year: 2015 PMID: 26652259 PMCID: PMC4676364 DOI: 10.3402/fnr.v59.28795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Nutr Res ISSN: 1654-661X Impact factor: 3.894
Goals and tools of the sensory-based food education programme
| Activating session | Goal of a session | Tools |
|---|---|---|
| 1st ‘Familiarisation’ | Explore and get familiar with own senses (sense of smell, touch, taste, hearing, and sight). Learning by playing evocative activating games | Sensory cards, puppet, cloth bags for touching, food samples ( |
| 2nd ‘Applying to senses’ | Observing food samples and surrounding with smelling, touching, hearing, looking, and tasting | Sensory cards, puppet, cloth bags with food samples ( |
| 3rd ‘Sweet-sour’ | Learning sweet and sour in food focusing on vegetables, fruit and berries with five senses | Sensory cards, food cards, puppets, activating fairy tale, variety of food samples, magnifying glass, kitchen utensils, play shop |
| 4th ‘Bitter-salty’ | Learning bitter and salty focusing on cooking with five senses | Sensory cards, variety of food samples, kitchen utensils, stories, salad materials |
| 5th ‘Umami’ | Learning umami and food talk focusing on food exploring with five senses | Sensory cards, variety of food samples, kitchen utensils, stories, variety of food samples, play shop, food posters |
Background characteristics of the intervention and control children and their mothers
| Intervention | Control |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| N consents | 44 | 24 | |
| Girls ( | 22 (50%) | 14 (58%) | 0.40 |
| Age of the child, years (mean, SD) | 5.1 (0.8) | 4.7 (0.9) | 0.054 |
|
| 39 | 22 | |
| Children's neophobia score, mean (SD) | 34.0 (10.0) | 39.8 (14.8) | 0.069 |
| Age of the mother, years (mean, SD) | 34.1 (5.7) | 33.0 (7.0) | 0.52 |
| Maternal education, university or polytechnic | 23% | 32% | 0.46 |
| Maternal employment, working | 74% | 77% | 0.80 |
| Maternal smoking | 26% | 14% | 0.31 |
Categorical variables compared with chi-square test and continuous variables with t-test.
Willingness to eat (%) test samples in the intervention (INT, n=37) and control groups (CNTR, n=19) at baseline (m1) and after the intervention (m2)
| Phase | Not tasted | Tasted a bit | Half of the sample eaten | Whole sample eaten | Wilcoxon, | Friedman's, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carrot | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 10.8 | 18.9 | 21.6 | 48.6 | 0.001 | <0.001 |
| m2 | 5.4 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 81.1 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 52.6 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 42.1 | 0.25 | 0.48 |
| m2 | 31.6 | 15.8 | 5.3 | 47.4 | |||
| Swede | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 18.9 | 32.4 | 5.4 | 43.2 | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| m2 | 10.8 | 10.8 | 13.5 | 64.9 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 52.6 | 31.6 | 0.0 | 15.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| m2 | 63.2 | 10.5 | 10.5 | 15.8 | |||
| Cabbage | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 21.6 | 37.8 | 0.0 | 40.5 | 0.039 | 0.074 |
| m2 | 21.6 | 13.5 | 5.4 | 59.5 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 57.9 | 21.1 | 0.0 | 21.1 | 0.39 | 0.41 |
| m2 | 68.4 | 15.8 | 0.0 | 15.8 | |||
| Romaine lettuce | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 27.0 | 35.1 | 0.0 | 37.8 | 0.17 | 0.061 |
| m2 | 21.6 | 21.6 | 5.4 | 51.4 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 78.9 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 15.8 | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| m2 | 47.4 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 26.3 | |||
| Rucola | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 27.0 | 54.1 | 2.7 | 16.2 | 0.048 | 0.108 |
| m2 | 29.7 | 21.6 | 16.2 | 32.4 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 68.4 | 21.1 | 0.0 | 10.5 | 0.59 | 0.41 |
| m2 | 78.9 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 10.5 | |||
| Bilberry | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 18.9 | 27.0 | 0.0 | 54.1 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| m2 | 5.4 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 81.1 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 52.6 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 36.8 | 0.49 | 0.70 |
| m2 | 42.1 | 21.1 | 0.0 | 36.8 | |||
| Lingonberry | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 27.0 | 54.1 | 2.7 | 16.2 | 0.012 | 0.074 |
| m2 | 24.3 | 27.0 | 13.5 | 35.1 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 52.6 | 42.1 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.17 | 0.41 |
| m2 | 52.6 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 21.1 | |||
| Sea buckthorn | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 40.5 | 59.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.22 | 0.47 |
| m2 | 37.8 | 51.4 | 2.7 | 8.1 | |||
| CNTR | m1 | 47.4 | 47.4 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.11 | 0.41 |
| m2 | 42.1 | 36.8 | 0.0 | 21.1 | |||
| All samples | |||||||
| INT | m1 | 24.0 | 39.9 | 4.1 | 32.1 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
|
| m2 | 19.6 | 20.3 | 8.4 | 51.7 | ||
| CNTR | m1 | 57.9 | 23.0 | 0.7 | 18.4 | 0.25 | 0.11 |
|
| m2 | 53.3 | 20.4 | 2.0 | 24.3 |
Statistical analyses (Wilcoxon and Friedman) were made within the group (INT and CNTR) by comparing the results of m1 and m2.
Fig. 1Willingness to eat all of the test samples together in the intervention and control groups at baseline (m1) and after the intervention (m2).
Fig. 2The preferences of children for specific vegetables and berries as reported by their parents and their intake in the test situation (baseline measurement, both groups together, n=55 families).