| Literature DB >> 28764675 |
Saskia Op den Bosch1, Helena Duch2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early childhood obesity disproportionately affects children of low socioeconomic status. Children attending Head Start are reported to have an obesity rate of 17.9%.This longitudinal study aimed to understand the relationship between cognitive stimulation at home and intake of junk food, physical activity and body size, for a nationally representative sample of 3- and 4-year old children entering Head Start.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28764675 PMCID: PMC5539881 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-017-0918-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Demographic characteristics of sampled children and their familiesab
| Demographics | Total number | Percent of sample |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 991 | 52.0% |
| Race/ Ethnicity | ||
| White | 457 | 24.0% |
| Maternal Education | ||
| Less than High School | 743 | 39.0% |
| Household Income | ||
| Less than 30 K | 1372 | 72.0% |
| Marital Status | ||
| Not Married | 1238 | 65.0% |
| Birth Weightd | ||
| Normal Weight (>5.5lbs) | 1619 | 85.0% |
| Cohort | ||
| % 3-year olds | 51.0% |
a N = 1905 weighted sample
bUpdated at Follow-up, 2009
cGeneral Education Diploma
dExcludes cases of birthweight >5.5 lbs
Coding key for cognitive stimulation composite questionsa
| Question | Coding |
|---|---|
| Frequency read to child in past week | 0 = less than 3× / 1 = 3× or more |
| No. of minutes/day child is read to | 0 = less than 20 min / 0 = more than 20 min |
| Told them a story | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Taught child letters, words, numbers | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Taught child songs or music | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Worked on arts and crafts with child | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Took child on errands | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Involved child in household chores | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Talked about what happened in Head Start | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Talked about TV programs/videos | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Played counting games | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Visited a library with child | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Gone to a movie with child | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Gone to a play or concert with child | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Gone to a mall with child | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Visited art gallery or museum | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Visited zoo or aquarium with child | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Talked with child about heritage | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Attend community sponsored event | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Attended church activity/school | 0 = no / 1 = yes |
| Number of children books in household | 0 = less than 10 / 1 = more than 10 |
aComposite variable created as a sum of these items
Descriptives for predictor and outcome variables of interestab
| Descriptive | Fall 2006 | Spring 2008 | Spring 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Stimulation | |||
| % Low Cognitive | 17 | ||
| % Medium Cognitive | 65 | ||
| % High Cognitive | 18 | ||
| Physical Activity | |||
| % Active | 29 | 28 | |
| % Not Activ | 71 | 72 | |
| Junk Food Consumption | |||
| % Low Consumption | 38 | 39 | |
| % Moderate Consumption | 58 | 56 | |
| % High Consumption | 3 | 4 | |
| BMI Category | |||
| % Normal Weight | 76 | 70 | 71 |
| % Overweight | 18 | 16 | 21 |
| % Obese | 6 | 14 | 8 |
a N = 1905 weighted sample
b0.01% and 0.02% of sample reported no consumption of junk food in 2008 and 2009, respectively
Relative risk of low junk food consumption predicted by cognitive stimulation in 2008 [F(39,9) = 319.7, p = 0.000]
| Relative risk ratio and 95% CI of low junk food consumption | |
|---|---|
| Medium Cognitive Stimulationa | 1.5* (1.02, 2.29) |
| Maternal Education > High Schoolb | 1.5** (1.08, 2.20) |
|
| |
|
| 0.96 (0.88, 1.07) |
|
| |
|
| 0.70 (0.47, 1.03) |
|
| 1.0 (0.73, 1.37) |
|
| 0.60 (0.21, 1.64) |
|
| 2.57 (0.51, 13) |
|
| 1.3 (0.63, 2.77) |
|
| 0.70 (0.21, 2.39) |
|
| 0.99 (0.97, 1.02) |
|
| 0.80 (0.61, 1.03) |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.02
acompared to low cognitive stimulation
bcompared to less than high school
ccompared to White/Non Hispanic
Odds of being physically active predicted by cognitive stimulation
| 2008 | 2009 | |
|---|---|---|
| Medium Cognitive Stimulationa | 2.0**** (1.46,2.81) | 1.42 (0.89, 2.26) |
| High Cognitive Stimulationa | 2.8**** (1.87,4.27) | 2.67** (1.36,5.25) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| 1.04 (0.77, 1.40) | 1.33 (0.83, 2.12) |
|
| 0.74 (0.53, 1.03) | 0.94 (0.54, 1.65) |
|
| ||
|
| 1.62** (1.13, 2.32) | 1.47 (0.73, 2.95) |
|
| 2.00** (1.25,3.32) | 1.61 (0.84, 3.09) |
|
| 0.43*** (0.25, 0.74) | 0.31 (0.93, 1.02) |
|
| 3.89* (1.08, 14.0) | |
|
| 2.70* (1.17, 6.38) | 2.05 (0.48, 8.76) |
|
| 1.30 (0.31, 5.52) | 1.75 (0.24, 12.83) |
|
| 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) | 1.06 (0.99, 1.12) |
|
| 1.09 (.087, 1.36) | 1.24 (0.87, 1.76) |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001
acompared to low cognitive stimulation
bData for Asian Pacific Islander was omitted in 2009