Table 4.
Mean scale response | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overweight sibling (n 29) | Healthy-weight sibling (n 29) | Mean difference | 95 % CI | P value | |
Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire( 29 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’) | |||||
Emotional eating | 1·9 | 1·6 | 0·3 | –0·1, 0·8 | 0·16 |
Food responsiveness | 2·7 | 2·4 | 0·3 | –0·2, 0·8 | 0·18 |
Satiety responsiveness | 2·7 | 3·3 | –0·6 | –0·9, –0·3 | <0·001 |
Food fussiness | 2·8 | 3·0 | –0·2 | –0·6, 0·2 | 0·39 |
Enjoyment of food | 3·9 | 3·4 | 0·5 | 0·2, 0·8 | 0·01 |
Slowness in eating | 3·1 | 3·2 | –0·1 | –0·5, 0·3 | 0·64 |
Child Feeding Questionnaire–parental feeding practices( 30 ); scale range=1–5 (‘disagree’–‘agree’) | |||||
Restriction | 3·5 | 3·1 | 0·4 | 0·1, 0·7 | 0·01 |
Pressure-to-eat | 2·8 | 3·3 | –0·5 | –0·8, –0·1 | 0·01 |
Monitoring | 3·8 | 3·6 | 0·2 | –0·3, 0·7 | 0·48 |
Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire( 15 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’) | |||||
Control | 3·3 | 3·1 | 0·2 | –0·1, 0·5 | 0·14 |
Emotional feeding | 1·6 | 1·7 | –0·1 | –0·4, 0·2 | 0·54 |
Encouragement-to-eat | 2·6 | 2·8 | –0·2 | –0·4, –0·0 | 0·04 |
Instrumental feeding | 1·7 | 1·9 | –0·2 | –0·4, 0·1 | 0·22 |
Analyses adjusted for child race/ethnicity, age and sex. Bold indicates that effects are significant at P<0·05.
Interpretation example: ‘Satiety responsiveness’. Within discordant weight status families, parents reported that the overweight target child exhibited statistically significantly less food satiety when eating than the healthy-weight child (mean difference=–0·6; 95 % CI –0·9, –0·3; P<0·001).