Bergmeier Heidi J, Skouteris Helen, Haycraft Emma, Haines Jess, Hooley Merrilyn
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia;
School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom; and.
J Nutr. 2015 Jun;145(6):1311-6. doi: 10.3945/jn.114.206268. Epub 2015 Apr 15.
Controlling feeding practices are linked to children's self-regulatory eating practices and weight status. Maternal reports of controlling feeding practices are not always significantly related to independently rated mealtime observations. However, prior studies only assessed 1 mealtime observation, which may not be representative of typical mealtime settings or routines.
The first aim was to examine associations between reported and observed maternal pressure to eat and restriction feeding practices at baseline (T1) and after ∼ 12 mo (T2). The second aim was to evaluate relations between maternal and child factors [e.g., concern about child weight, child temperament, child body mass index (BMI)-for-age z scores (BMIz)] at T1 and reported and observed maternal pressure to eat and restriction feeding practices (T1 and T2). The third aim was to assess prospective associations between maternal feeding practices (T1) and child eating behaviors (T2) and child BMIz (T2).
A sample of 79 mother-child dyads in Victoria, Australia, participated in 2 lunchtime home observations (T1 and T2). BMI measures were collected during the visits. Child temperament, child eating behaviors, maternal parenting styles, and maternal feeding practices were evaluated at T1 and T2 via questionnaires. Associations were assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficients, paired t tests, and hierarchical regressions.
Reported restriction (T1) was inversely associated with observed restriction at T1 (r = -0.24, P < 0.05). Reported pressure to eat (T2) was associated with observed pressure to eat (T2) (r = 0.48, P < 0.01) but only for mothers of girls. Maternal weight concern was associated with reported restriction at T1 (r = 0.29, P < 0.01) and T2 (r = 0.36, P < 0.01), whereas observed restriction (T1) was prospectively associated child BMI at T2 (β = -0.18, P < 0.05).
Maternal reports may not always reflect feeding practices performed during mealtimes; it is possible some mothers may not be aware of their practices or observations may not capture covert controlling strategies.
控制性喂养方式与儿童的自我调节饮食行为及体重状况相关。母亲对控制性喂养方式的报告与独立评定的进餐时间观察结果并不总是显著相关。然而,先前的研究仅评估了一次进餐时间观察,这可能无法代表典型的进餐时间环境或日常情况。
第一个目标是研究在基线期(T1)和大约12个月后(T2),报告的和观察到的母亲进食压力及限制喂养方式之间的关联。第二个目标是评估T1期母亲和儿童因素[例如,对儿童体重的担忧、儿童气质、儿童年龄别体重指数(BMI)z评分(BMIz)]与报告的和观察到的母亲进食压力及限制喂养方式(T1和T2)之间的关系。第三个目标是评估母亲喂养方式(T1)与儿童进食行为(T2)及儿童BMIz(T2)之间的前瞻性关联。
澳大利亚维多利亚州的79对母婴样本参与了两次午餐时间的家庭观察(T1和T2)。在访视期间收集BMI测量值。通过问卷调查在T1和T2期评估儿童气质、儿童进食行为、母亲养育方式和母亲喂养方式。使用Pearson相关系数、配对t检验和分层回归评估关联。
报告的限制(T1)与T1期观察到的限制呈负相关(r = -0.24,P < 0.05)。报告的进食压力(T2)与T2期观察到的进食压力相关(r = 0.48,P < 0.01),但仅适用于女孩的母亲。母亲对体重的担忧与T1期(r = 0.29,P < 0.01)和T2期(r = 0.36,P < 0.01)报告的限制相关,而观察到的限制(T1)与T2期儿童BMI呈前瞻性关联(β = -0.18,P < 0.05)。
母亲的报告可能并不总是反映进餐时间的喂养行为;有可能一些母亲没有意识到自己的行为,或者观察可能没有捕捉到隐蔽的控制策略。