Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30561294›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2019

An examination of food parenting practices: structure, control and autonomy promotion.

Dara R Musher-Eizenman, Lynnel Goodman, Lindsey Roberts, Jenna Marx, Maija Taylor, Debra Hoffmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Exploring Feeding Practices and Food Literacy in Parents with Young Children from Disadvantaged Areas.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dara R Musher-EizenmanDepartment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.
Lynnel GoodmanDepartment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.
Lindsey RobertsDepartment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.
Jenna MarxDepartment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.
Maija TaylorDepartment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.
Debra HoffmannDepartment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn recent years, researchers have been working towards creating a standard conceptual framework of food parenting. To understand how parents' reports correspond with the proposed model, the current study examined parents' reports of their feeding behaviours in the context of a newly established framework of food parenting.

designCross-sectional, with a two-week follow-up for a subset of the sample. Participants completed a quantitative and qualitative survey to assess food parenting. The survey included items from common food parenting instruments to measure the constructs posited in the framework. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to ascertain which items related most closely to one another and factors were mapped on to existing constructs.

settingOnline.

participantsParents of children aged 2·5-7 years (n 496). Of these, 122 completed a two-week follow-up.

resultsAnalyses revealed eleven aspects of Structure (monitoring; distraction; family presence; meal/snack schedule; unstructured practices; healthy/unhealthy food availability; food preparation; healthy/unhealthy modelling; rules), ten aspects of Coercive Control (pressure to eat; using food to control emotions; food incentives to eat; food incentives to behave; non-food incentives to eat; restriction for health/weight; covert restriction; clean plate; harsh coercion) and seven aspects of Autonomy Promotion (praise; encouragement; nutrition education; child involvement; negotiation; responsive feeding; repeated offering). Content validity, assessed via parents' open-ended explanations of their responses, was high, and test-retest reliability was moderate to high. Structure and Autonomy Promoting food parenting were highly positively correlated.

conclusionsIn general, parents' responses provided support for the model, but suggested some amendments and refinements.

Indexed as

ChildrenFeeding practicesFood parentingMeasurement

Identifiers

PMID30561294
PMCPMC10260596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.