Table 4.
Effects of chronic and lagged transient stressors on pressure-to-eat or restriction parent feeding practices at meals (N=61 participants; 383 observation days)a
| Outcome: pressure-to-eat feeding practices | Outcome: restriction feeding practices | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent predictor variable | Mean response | 95% CI | P valueb | Mean response | 95% CI | P value |
| Chronic stressors | ||||||
| High chronic stress indicator (ref: low chronic stress) | -0.12 | (-0.28, 0.05) | 0.161 | -0.09 | (-0.25, 0.07) | 0.249 |
| Stressful life events (prior 6 months) | ||||||
| Active (ref: no active events) | 0.03 | (-0.09, 0.16) | 0.632 | -0.04 | (-0.17, 0.08) | 0.479 |
| Resolved (ref: no resolved events) | 0.15 | (0.05, 0.26) | 0.005 | -0.01 | (-0.12, 0.10) | 0.856 |
| Transient stressors | ||||||
| Lagged sources of stress | ||||||
| "A lot of work at home, school, or job" | ||||||
| L0. (same day) | -0.03 | (-0.08, 0.02) | 0.291 | 0.04 | (-0.02, 0.10) | 0.180 |
| L1. (second day) | -0.01 | (-0.06, 0.04) | 0.771 | -0.02 | (-0.08, 0.03) | 0.391 |
| L2. (third day) | 0.01 | (-0.04, 0.06) | 0.755 | 0.00 | (-0.05, 0.06) | 0.926 |
| "Conflicts with spouse, partner, or children" | ||||||
| L0. (same day)c | 0.05 | (-0.02, 0.11) | 0.147 | 0.09 | (0.03, 0.16) | 0.005 |
| L1. (second day) | -0.05 | (-0.12, 0.01) | 0.090 | 0.01 | (-0.06, 0.08) | 0.764 |
| L2. (third day) | 0.06 | (0.00, 0.12) | 0.047 | 0.04 | (-0.03, 0.10) | 0.243 |
| "Financial problems" | ||||||
| L0. (same day) | -0.06 | (-0.18, 0.06) | 0.311 | 0.02 | (-0.11, 0.15) | 0.753 |
| L1. (second day) | 0.08 | (-0.05, 0.22) | 0.215 | 0.04 | (-0.10, 0.18) | 0.564 |
| L2. (third day) | -0.01 | (-0.14, 0.12) | 0.901 | 0.06 | (-0.08, 0.19) | 0.422 |
aModel adjusted for: Parent sex, age, race, country of origin, relationship status, acculturation status (assimilation, separation, and integration), and day of the week
Interpretation Example: High chronic stress over the last 30 days (indicator coded "high or low") was not statistically associated with either food pressuring or restriction (P > 0.05). Parents with resolved stressful life events were more likely to pressure (0.15, 95% CI: (0.05, 0.26), P=0.005), and those who reported low food security (relative to the most food secure) were more likely to use restrictive feeding practices (0.32, 95% CI: (0.07, 0.56)).
bBoldface values indicate statistical significance at p < 0.05.
c Interpersonal transient stressors (i.e., conflicts with partners and children) were strongly, positively related to the fraction of meals in which restrictive feeding practices were used within the day (0.09, 95% CI: (0.03, 0.16), P=0.005), however there was not evidence of a persistent lag effect (P>0.05)