Tatiana Andreyeva1, Erica L Kenney2, Meghan O'Connell3, Xiaohan Sun4, Kathryn E Henderson5. 1. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT; Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT. Electronic address: tatiana.andreyeva@uconn.edu. 2. Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 3. School of Nursing, Yale University, New Haven, CT. 4. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT. 5. Henderson Consulting, Guilford, CT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the dietary quality of lunches and feeding practices (family-style service, teacher role modeling) in Connecticut child care centers and made comparisons by center participation in the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). DESIGN: Plate waste methods and visual observation of lunches served and consumed. SETTING: A total of 97 randomly selected licensed Connecticut child care centers (53 CACFP and 44 non-CACFP). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 838 preschool-aged children. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total energy intake, macronutrient intake, and intake by CACFP meal component as well as use of family-style dining, management of additional helpings, and whether and what teachers consumed in view of children. ANALYSIS: Child dietary intake at lunch was compared with dietary and CACFP recommendations using a mixed linear regression model. RESULTS: The CACFP centers were more likely to offer family-style service and have staff eat the same foods as the children. Children in non-CACFP centers consumed more saturated fat (4.1 vs 2.7 g; P < .001) and trans fats (0.1 vs 0.1 g; P = .02) and less milk (3.5 vs 2.7 oz; P < .001) than did children in CACFP centers. Caloric intake and dietary fiber were below recommendations in both groups. Participation in CACFP was a significant predictor of low-fat milk consumption. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The CACFP-participating centers confer some nutritional advantages in terms of provider behavior during meals, characteristics of food offerings, and child intake. Current feeding practices in child care settings require further exploration in the context of serving children at risk for food insecurity and in light of recent work on responsive feeding.
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the dietary quality of lunches and feeding practices (family-style service, teacher role modeling) in Connecticut child care centers and made comparisons by center participation in the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). DESIGN: Plate waste methods and visual observation of lunches served and consumed. SETTING: A total of 97 randomly selected licensed Connecticut child care centers (53 CACFP and 44 non-CACFP). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 838 preschool-aged children. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total energy intake, macronutrient intake, and intake by CACFP meal component as well as use of family-style dining, management of additional helpings, and whether and what teachers consumed in view of children. ANALYSIS: Child dietary intake at lunch was compared with dietary and CACFP recommendations using a mixed linear regression model. RESULTS: The CACFP centers were more likely to offer family-style service and have staff eat the same foods as the children. Children in non-CACFP centers consumed more saturated fat (4.1 vs 2.7 g; P < .001) and trans fats (0.1 vs 0.1 g; P = .02) and less milk (3.5 vs 2.7 oz; P < .001) than did children in CACFP centers. Caloric intake and dietary fiber were below recommendations in both groups. Participation in CACFP was a significant predictor of low-fat milk consumption. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The CACFP-participating centers confer some nutritional advantages in terms of provider behavior during meals, characteristics of food offerings, and child intake. Current feeding practices in child care settings require further exploration in the context of serving children at risk for food insecurity and in light of recent work on responsive feeding.
Authors: Traci A Bekelman; Laura L Bellows; Morgan L McCloskey; Corby K Martin; Susan L Johnson Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Daniel A Zaltz; Amelie A Hecht; Russell R Pate; Brian Neelon; Jennifer R O'Neill; Sara E Benjamin-Neelon Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Alison Tovar; Patricia Markham Risica; Andrea Ramirez; Noereem Mena; Ingrid E Lofgren; Kristen Cooksey Stowers; Kim M Gans Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Andrea Ramirez; Maya Vadiveloo; Patricia M Risica; Kim M Gans; Mary L Greaney; Noereem Z Mena; Kristen Cooksey Stowers; Alison Tovar Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Bethany D Williams; Susan B Sisson; Emily L Stinner; Hope N Hetrick; Marny Dunlap; Jennifer Graef-Downard; Kathrin Eliot; Karla Finnell; Alicia L Salvatore Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Audrey Elford; Cherice Gwee; Maliney Veal; Rati Jani; Ros Sambell; Shabnam Kashef; Penelope Love Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Raphael M Herr; Katharina Diehl; Sven Schneider; Nina Osenbruegge; Nicole Memmer; Steffi Sachse; Stephanie Hoffmann; Benjamin Wachtler; Max Herke; Claudia R Pischke; Anna Novelli; Jennifer Hilger-Kolb Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daniel A Zaltz; Amelie A Hecht; Roni A Neff; Russell R Pate; Brian Neelon; Jennifer R O'Neill; Sara E Benjamin-Neelon Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 5.717