Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 Mar 29;115(9):1408–1416. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.01.011

Table 4.

Predicted probabilities of use of eating and weight-related parenting practices by food security status among mothers of adolescent girls (n=1190)

Model 2 Model 3
Estimated Prevalence Prevalence Differences (95% CI) Estimated Prevalence Prevalence Differences (95% CI)
Food Secure (FS) Low Food Secure (LFS) Very Low Food Secure (VLFS) FS vs. LFS FS vs. VLFS Food Secure (FS) Low Food Secure (LFS) Very Low Food Secure (VLFS) FS vs. LFS FS vs. VLFS
Frequent encouragement to diet 24.2 28.8 33.1 4.6 (−1.8, 11.1) 8.9 (0.5, 17.4) 25.7 27.3 31.8 1.7 (−4.5, 7.8) 6.1 (−1.8, 14.0)
Frequent encouragement for healthy eating 61.4 65.7 66.2 4.4 (−2.8, 11.5) 4.8 (−4.2, 13.8) 61.3 65.5 64.1 4.2 (−3.2, 11.6) 2.8 (−6.6, 12.2)
Frequent comments about child’s weight 35.1 36.8 43.9 1.7 (−5.1, 8.4) 8.8 (0.0, 17.6) 36.1 35.3 42.2 −0.7 (−7.5, 6.0) 6.1 (−2.7, 14.8)
Concerned about child’s weight 35.7 40.4 47.4 4.7 (−2.5, 12.0) 11.6 (2.3, 21.0) 36.4 38.5 45.2 2.1 (−4.9, 9.0) 8.8 (−0.1, 17.6)
Frequent use of restrictive feeding practices 20.1 26.9 34.4 6.8 (0.6, 13.0) 14.3 (5.8, 22.8) 20.5 26.3 33.0 5.7 (−0.4, 11.8) 12.4 (4.2, 20.7)
Frequent use of pressured feeding practices 19.1 22.4 22.6 3.4 (−2.2, 8.9) 3.5 (−3.6, 10.6) 18.9 21.6 21.1 2.7 (−2.8, 8.2) 2.3 (−4.7, 9.2)

Model 2: Adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics (child’s age, mothers’ race/ethnicity and educational attainment, number of children in home, and household income)

Model 3: Model 2 with additional adjustment for maternal BMI and adolescent BMI percentile