Table 3.
Adjusted mean parent report of child eating behaviours, parental feeding practices and parental feeding style scales according to weight status concordance groups; parents and 6–12-year-old siblings from diverse racial/ethnic and low-income households, Minneapolis/St. Paul area, Minnesota, USA (Family Meals, LIVE!: Sibling Edition)
| Mean scale response | Condcordant overweight v. ref group | Mean scale response | Discordant weight v. ref. group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concordant healthy weight (n 64) (ref. group) | Concordant overweight (n 50) | Mean difference | 95 % CI | Discordant weight (n 58) | Mean difference | 95 % CI | Overall P value | |
| Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire( 29 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’) | ||||||||
| Emotional eating | 1·5a | 2·0a | 0·5 | –0·1, 1·0 | 1·7a | 0·2 | –0·3, 0·6 | 0·26 |
| Food responsiveness | 2·4a | 2·8a | 0·4 | –0·1, 0·8 | 2·6a | 0·2 | –0·1, 0·5 | 0·23 |
| Satiety responsiveness | 3·0b | 2·6a | –0·4 | –0·7, –0·1 | 3·0a , b | 0·0 | –0·3, 0·3 | 0·06 |
| Food fussiness | 2·6a | 2·6a | 0·0 | –0·5, 0·4 | 2·9a | 0·3 | –0·1, 0·7 | 0·22 |
| Enjoyment of food | 3·2b | 4·0a | 0·8 | 0·1, 1·5 | 3·7a , b | 0·5 | –0·1, 1·2 | 0·07 |
| Slowness in eating | 3·1a | 3·1a | 0·0 | –0·4, 0·3 | 3·2a | 0·1 | –0·3, 0·4 | 0·89 |
| Child Feeding Questionnaire–parental feeding practices( 30 ); scale range=1–5 (‘disagree’–‘agree’) | ||||||||
| Restriction | 2·9 b | 3·3 a | 0·4 | 0·0, 0·8 | 3·3 a | 0·4 | 0·1, 0·8 | 0·04 |
| Pressure-to-eat | 2·8a | 2·6a | –0·3 | –0·9, 0·3 | 3·1a | 0·2 | –0·3, 0·7 | 0·29 |
| Monitoring | 3·1b | 4·0a | 0·9 | 0·1, 1·7 | 3·7a , b | 0·6 | –0·2, 1·3 | 0·06 |
| Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire( 15 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’) | ||||||||
| Control | 3·2a | 3·2a | 0·0 | –0·4, 0·3 | 3·2a | 0·0 | –0·3, 0·3 | 0·98 |
| Emotional feeding | 1·6a | 1·7a | 0·1 | –0·4, 0·6 | 1·7a | 0·1 | –0·3, 0·5 | 0·81 |
| Encouragement-to-eat | 2·3a | 2·7a | 0·4 | –0·4, 1·2 | 2·8a | 0·5 | –0·2, 1·2 | 0·31 |
| Instrumental feeding | 1·8a | 1·6a | –0·2 | –0·7, 0·3 | 1·8a | 0·0 | –0·5, 0·5 | 0·62 |
Analyses adjusted for child race/ethnicity, age and sex. Bold indicates that effects are significant at P<0·05.
Weight status was not available for two families with sibling children (eighty-six families and 172 children were available for analysis).
Interpretation example: ‘Restriction’. There was statistical evidence that parent use of restrictive feeding practices was overall different by weight concordance group (P=0·04). Differences between the three weight status groups indicate that parents reported higher mean restriction in concordant overweight sibling families compared with concordant healthy-weight sibling families (mean difference=0·4; 95 % CI: 0·0, 0·8; P<0·05). Mean restriction was also higher in discordant weight sibling families compared with concordant healthy-weight sibling families (mean difference=0·4; 95 % CI 0·1, 0·8; P<0·05).
a,b,cMean scale responses within a row with unlike superscript letters were significantly different (P<0·05). For example, satiety responsiveness was significantly different between the concordant overweight and concordant healthy weight groups as indicated by the different superscript letters. However, the two concordant groups were not significantly different from the discordant weight status group as they share superscript letters.