| Literature DB >> 27429801 |
Sheryl O Hughes1, Thomas G Power2, Teresia M O'Connor1, Jennifer Orlet Fisher3, Tzu-An Chen1.
Abstract
Objective. The aim was to investigate the influence of feeding styles and food parenting practices on low-income children's weight status over time. Method. Participants were 129 Latina parents and their Head Start children participating in a longitudinal study. Children were assessed at baseline (4 to 5 years old) and again eighteen months later. At each time point, parents completed questionnaires and height and weight measures were taken on the child. Results. The indulgent feeding style (parent-report at baseline) was associated with increased child BMI z-score eighteen months later compared to other feeding styles. Authoritative, authoritarian, and uninvolved feeding styles were not significantly associated with increased child BMI z-score. Child BMI z-score at Time 1 (strongest) and maternal acculturation were positive predictors of child BMI z-score at Time 2. Maternal use of restriction positively predicted and maternal monitoring negatively predicted Time 2 BMI z-score, but only when accounting for feeding styles. Conclusion. This is the first study to investigate the impact of feeding styles on child weight status over time. Results suggest that indulgent feeding predicts later increases in children's weight status. The interplay between feeding styles and food parenting practices in influencing child weight status needs to be further explored.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27429801 PMCID: PMC4939194 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7201082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obes ISSN: 2090-0708
Characteristics of the sample at the first time point (n = 129).
| Parent sex, female | 100.0% |
| Child sex, female | 45.0% |
| Parent age, mean in years (SD)a | 32.01 (6.68)a |
| Child age, mean in years (SD)a | 4.78 (0.46)a |
| Education of parent | |
| High school diploma or less | 62.8% |
| Some college or more | 37.2% |
| Employment status, currently employed | 24.0% |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 55.8% |
| Never married | 13.2% |
| Widowed, separated, or divorced | 31.0% |
| Parent immigrant status | |
| Born in the USA | 15.5% |
| Born in Mexico | 64.3% |
| Born in Central America | 20.2% |
| Child immigrant status | |
| Born in the USA | 97% |
| Child BMI categories | |
| Normal (<85th percentile) | 48.8% |
| Overweight (85th to <95th percentile) | 21.7% |
| Obese (≥95th percentile) | 29.5% |
aStandard deviation.
Correlations between study variables.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Female | — | ||||||||||||||
| (2) Age in months | 0.03 | — | |||||||||||||
| (3) Food responsiveness | −0.31 | −0.01 | — | ||||||||||||
| (4) Emotional overeating | −0.22 | 0.08 | 0.62 | — | |||||||||||
| (5) Satiety responsiveness | 0.10 | 0.11 | −0.35 | −0.04 | — | ||||||||||
| (6) Acculturation | 0.04 | 0.10 | −0.03 | −0.05 | 0.08 | — | |||||||||
| (7) Born in USA | 0.09 | 0.04 | −0.08 | −0.09 | 0.13 | 0.59 | — | ||||||||
| (8) Monitoring | 0.08 | −0.04 | −0.08 | −0.11 | −0.02 | 0.10 | 0.08 | — | |||||||
| (9) Pressure to eat | −0.18 | −0.12 | 0.07 | −0.14 | −0.05 | −0.26 | −0.31 | 0.09 | — | ||||||
| (10) Restriction | −0.08 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.05 | −0.20 | −0.34 | 0.04 | 0.30 | — | |||||
| (11) Authoritarian | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.23 | −0.18 | −0.21 | −0.18 | 0.26 | 0.34 | — | ||||
| (12) Indulgent | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.01 | −0.20 | −0.15 | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.07 | −0.14 | −0.42 | −0.54 | — | |||
| (13) Authoritative | 0.00 | −0.05 | 0.11 | 0.14 | −0.09 | 0.08 | −0.02 | 0.13 | −0.12 | 0.01 | −0.36 | −0.31 | — | ||
| (14) BMI | −0.05 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.06 | −0.20 | 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.03 | −0.21 | −0.06 | −0.16 | 0.17 | 0.02 | — | |
| (15) BMI | −0.04 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.06 | −0.15 | 0.16 | 0.06 | −0.06 | −0.20 | −0.04 | −0.22 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 0.92 | — |
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.
Regression analysis predicting child BMI z at Time 2 (N = 129).
| Block 1 | Block 2 | Block 3 | Block 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model adjusted | 0.859 | 0.857 | 0.857 | 0.867 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
| Independent variables | Std beta | Std beta | Std beta | Std beta |
|
| ||||
| Child sex (ref group: male) | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Child age in months | 0.001 | −0.004 | −0.006 | −0.005 |
| Child BMI | 0.919 | 0.924 | 0.929 | 0.915 |
| Acculturation (English domain) | 0.103 | 0.102 | 0.108 | 0.094 |
| Born in USA | 0.013 | 0.015 | −0.003 | 0.003 |
| Food responsiveness | 0.016 | 0.004 | −0.027 | |
| Emotional overeating | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.038 | |
| Satiety responsiveness | 0.034 | 0.026 | 0.044 | |
| Monitoring | −0.048 | −0.068 | ||
| Pressure to eat | 0.021 | 0.038 | ||
| Restriction | 0.034 | 0.082 | ||
| Authoritariana | −0.033 | |||
| Authoritativea | 0.050 | |||
| Indulgenta | 0.114 | |||
p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001.
Std beta: standardized beta coefficient.
aFor each feeding style variable, a dichotomous predictor was used with a “2” assigned to mothers who showed that feeding style and a “1” to those who did not.