| Literature DB >> 30406053 |
Seung Hee Lee-Kwan1, Sohyun Park1, Leah Maynard1, Heidi M Blanck1.
Abstract
One contributing factor to the obesity epidemic is the large portion sizes served in restaurants. However, no study has looked at the parents' desire for smaller-portioned meals for their children at restaurants in the U.S. This study examined parents' preference for restaurants to offer smaller, lower-priced child portions for their children and reasons for the preference. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the association between preference for child portions and variables on parental sociodemographic characteristics and weight status. About 70% of parents said they would prefer that restaurants offer smaller, lower-priced child portions of all menu offerings. The adjusted odds of preferring child portions were significantly higher among Hispanic parents (OR, 1.95 vs. non-Hispanic whites) but significantly lower among parents with lower education (≤ high school, OR, 0.64; some college, OR, 0.69 vs. college graduate) and parents residing in the Midwest or West (Midwest, OR, 0.61; West, OR, 0.58 vs. South). The most common reason for preferring child portions of all meals was "wanting my child to eat healthier foods that are not offered on the children's menu" (72%). These findings can be used to encourage restaurants and other venues to consider offering child portions of healthier menu items.Entities:
Keywords: Children; Fast foods; Parents; Restaurants
Year: 2018 PMID: 30406053 PMCID: PMC6209731 DOI: 10.7762/cnr.2018.7.4.241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Nutr Res ISSN: 2287-3732
Figure 1Analytic sampling strategy.
Characteristics of parents and their associations with preference for restaurants to offer smaller, lower-priced child portions of all menu items — SummerStyles survey, 2015
| Parental characteristics | Total No. (weighted %)* | Would like restaurants to offer smaller, lower-priced child portion of all menu | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bivariate analysis† | Multivariate | |||
| Yes | Yes | |||
| % ± SE | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |||
| Total sample (n = 1,299) | 69.7 ± 1.6 | |||
| Age, yr | ||||
| 18–34 | 283 (33.2) | 70.5 ± 3.0 | 0.96 (0.62–1.49) | |
| 35–49 | 725 (53.0) | 68.5 ± 2.2 | 0.83 (0.57–1.21) | |
| ≥ 50 | 291 (13.7) | 72.1 ± 3.2 | Reference | |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 516 (43.8) | 68.4 ± 2.5 | Reference | |
| Female | 783 (56.2) | 70.7 ± 2.1 | 1.14 (0.83–1.55) | |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||
| White, non-Hispanic | 941 (62.9) | 68.4 ± 1.9 | Reference | |
| Black, non-Hispanic | 115 (10.2) | 62.6 ± 5.3 | 0.62 (0.38–1.04) | |
| Hispanic | 167 (17.8) | 78.6 ± 3.7 | 1.95 (1.20–3.16) | |
| Other, non-Hispanic | 76 (9.1) | 68.8 ± 6.7 | 0.93 (0.51–1.72) | |
| Education level | ||||
| ≤ High school | 329 (31.9) | 67.2 ± 3.2 | 0.64 (0.42–0.97) | |
| Some college | 417 (28.8) | 67.3 ± 2.8 | 0.69 (0.48–0.99) | |
| College graduate | 553 (39.3) | 73.4 ± 2.3 | Reference | |
| Annual household income | ||||
| ≤ $34,999 | 271 (19.9) | 69.7 ± 3.6 | 0.85 (0.51–1.42) | |
| $35,000–$74,999 | 489 (36.7) | 68.1 ± 2.6 | 0.73 (0.49–1.11) | |
| $75,000–$99,999 | 218 (16.3) | 67.7 ± 4.0 | 0.72 (0.45–1.16) | |
| ≥ $100,000 | 321 (27.1) | 73.0 ± 3.0 | Reference | |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married/domestic partnership | 1,064 (81.5) | 69.2 ± 1.8 | Reference | |
| Not married | 235 (18.5) | 72.0 ± 3.8 | 1.21 (0.78–1.89) | |
| Geographic regions | ||||
| Northeast | 222 (16.5) | 67.2 ± 4.0 | 0.66 (0.42–1.03) | |
| Midwest | 344 (22.0) | 65.4 ± 3.3 | 0.61 (0.41–0.90) | |
| South | 458 (38.0) | 74.6 ± 2.4 | Reference | |
| West | 275 (23.6) | 67.5 ± 3.6 | 0.58 (0.38–0.87) | |
| Weight status | ||||
| Underweight/normal weight | 472 (39.5) | 69.4 ± 2.6 | Reference | |
| Overweight | 404 (30.5) | 69.1 ± 2.9 | 1.02 (0.70–1.47) | |
| Obesity | 432 (30.0) | 70.7 ± 2.8 | 1.20 (0.82–1.75) | |
SE, standard error; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
*Unweighted sample size and weighted percent are presented. Weighted percent may not add up to 100% because of rounding; †The χ2 test was used for each variable to examine differences across categories, and p value was < 0.05.
Figure 2Reasons reported by parents who would like restaurants to offer smaller, lower-priced children's portion of all menu items (n=897).