Version Changes
Revised. Amendments from Version 1
Following suggestions from the reviewers, we have amended the introduction to address their comments. Throughout the manuscript, the phrasing was adjusted to avoid individual personal responsibility. In the first paragraph we have included information on the importance of the first 2 years of life in relation to both feeding, and other developmental processes. We have also included a sentence reporting that responsive feeding may be protective, and included a citation to support this. At the end of the second paragraph, we have been more specific the age range of participants in a statement made, and have provided more recent citations to support this. We have also been more specific in regards to parental perception of infant weight, and which feeding styles may correspond. In paragraph 3, we have provided more information about a reference cited, including types of populations and additional information on the factors identified in that review. At the end of this paragraph, we have included that evidence is mixed, and included previous literature mentioning how infant characteristics (such as fussiness, appetitive traits, and genetics) may influence parent feeding. The repetition of the word “supports” (in paragraph 4) was removed and an alternative given.
Abstract
Background: Childhood overweight and obesity is a major public health issue. Responsive feeding has been identified as having a protective effect against child overweight and obesity, and is associated with healthy weight gain during infancy. Responsive feeding occurs when the caregiver recognises and responds in a timely and developmentally appropriate manner to infant hunger and satiety cues. Despite its benefits, responsive feeding is not ubiquitous. To better support caregivers to engage in responsive feeding behaviours, it is necessary to first systematically identify the barriers and enablers associated with this behaviour. This mixed-methods systematic review therefore aims to synthesise evidence on barriers and enablers to responsive feeding using the COM-B model of behavioural change.
Methods: 7 electronic databases will be searched (Maternal and Infant Care, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE). Studies examining factors associated with parental responsive and non-responsive feeding of infants and children (<2 years) will be included. Papers collecting primary data, or analysing primary data through secondary analysis will be included. All titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened by two reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative data from all eligible papers will be independently extracted by at least two reviewers using pre-determined standardised data extraction forms. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of the studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). This review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA).
Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this review as no primary data will be collected, and no identifying personal information will be present. The review will be disseminated in a peer reviewed journal.
PROSPERO registration: CRD42019144570 (06/08/2019)
Keywords: Responsive feeding, caregiver, infant, overweight, obesity, systematic review, protocol
Introduction
The number of children overweight under the age of five is estimated to be over 41 million 1, leading to prevalence of overweight and obesity in infants and children being identified as a major public health issue 2. Infancy is posited to be a sensitive period for the development of child overweight, particularly the first two years 3, 4. The first 2 years are especially important because, during this time, children's feeding preferences and behaviours are influenced by modifiable parental approaches to child feeding that can lead to childhood obesity 5, 6. Throughout this time, infants experience bottle and breastfeeding, complementary feeding 7, leading onto a solid diet. Beyond this, other critical aspects of child development occur, including development of attachment 8 and self-regulation 9, and attention 10 which may interact with feeding. For instance, during the first 2 years of life, infants learn to self-regulate their food intake, from their own appetitive traits 11 and from their environment 12. Childhood obesity can lead to immediate and long term health complications, including, obstructive sleep apnoea, high blood pressure and obesity related cardiovascular disease 13. Children who have obesity are more likely to have obesity in adulthood, which is associated with a higher risk of many chronic diseases 14. Parental feeding practices and styles (as outlined in Table 1) are a crucial determinant in the aetiology of childhood obesity 15, with responsive feeding (both bottle and breast feeding) identified as having a protective effect against child overweight and obesity, and an associated reduced risk of overweight and obesity 16, 17.
Table 1. Table demonstrating definitions of different parental feeding styles and how they may relate to childhood overweight.
| Parental feeding styles
example |
Definition |
|---|---|
| Instrumental feeding | Using food as a reward for a desired outcome (i.e. a positive behaviour).
This may strengthen the preference for that food (often high calorie) 19 . |
| Pressuring to eat | Prompting to eat more food; the caregiver is concerned with increasing
the child’s food intake (such as adding cereal to a child’s bottle to increase intake) 22. |
| Monitoring food intake | Monitoring a child’s food intake; may be expected to result in a lower BMI,
however research has often identified no weight change 23. |
| Responsive feeding | Responding promptly and in a developmentally appropriate manner to
infant cues of satiety and hunger 3. |
| Food restriction | Minimising access to food to reduce child’s weight. This can result in the
opposite effect by causing the child to seek out the restricted food 19. |
Responsiveness is a reciprocal dimension of feeding in which an infant or young child provides clear feeding cues, such as hunger and satiety, and the caregiver responds in a prompt and developmentally appropriate manner 3. Responsive feeding can relate to early consumption of breast and/or formula milk, as well as in relation to introducing and establishing solid food consumption. From a very young age infants have the ability to self-regulate their food intake 18 but the volume of food an infant consumes depends on their caregiver’s ability to recognise and respond appropriately to their infant’s hunger and satiety cues, as well as this ability to self-regulate their intake. Non-responsive feeding may occur between an infant and caregiver when a caregiver misinterprets or misunderstands the infant’s hunger and satiety cues, and so responds by offering a developmentally inappropriate amount, type or texture of food. Non-responsive feeding may include, instrumental feeding, pressuring a child to eat, and controlling food intake, which have all been associated with childhood overweight and obesity 19– 21. Non-responsive feeding can be conceptualised as being at the opposite end of the spectrum to responsive feeding and research suggests it has a role in childhood weight gain and overweight 3. For example, caregivers who have an inability to recognise an infant’s weight is within a healthy range (with the infant being underweight or overweight), often utilise non-responsive feeding styles such as food restriction (for those infants perceived as overweight), or pressuring-to eat (for those infants perceived as underweight) 24, 25. These feeding styles have been associated with children (from birth through to age 18 years inclusive) developing unhealthy eating styles (such as emotional eating and eating in the absence of hunger), leading to an increased risk of obesity 26– 28.
Multiple factors may affect how caregivers engage in feeding behaviours. A recent qualitative review included studies consisting of predominantly or only mothers, in Europe, North America, Australasia and Mexico, with the majority of studies recruiting low-income caregivers 29. This review explored parental experiences of infant feeding and highlighted that some of these influencing factors are environmentally based.). These included costs of infant feeding 30, time constraints 31, sources of information (official recommendations 32, healthcare professionals 33, and friends and family 30, confusion of information from multiple sources 34, and pressure from family 35. Additional factors include psychological factors (such as maternal mental health 36 and maternal executive functioning 37), and social factors (including, interpersonal relationships, marital status, occupation, and the influence of family and friends) 29. Parental knowledge, beliefs, and prior experience also influence their feeding practices and styles 29. Previous literature, such as an analysis of the GEMINI cohort study, has noted the importance of genetics in appetitive traits including slowness in eating, satiety responsiveness, food responsiveness and enjoyment of food 11. Caregivers may also be simply responding to their infant’s appetite 12 with infants varying in appetite 38. Additionally, parents have been found to adjust their feeding style dependent on their child’s weight; an infant who is perceived by the parent to be underweight may be pressured to eat more, whilst parents may restrict their infant’s food intake if they perceive their infant to be overweight 24. However, evidence is mixed for maternal pressure to eat, with some research suggesting pressure to eat is associated with increased risk of obesity 3, meanwhile it has also been reported that pressure to eat is associated with lower weight at 2 years 21. Infant temperament may also influence feeding practices, with infants perceived as fussier, less responsive to food, and more responsive to internal satiety cues being pressured more 39. Although the evidence is mixed, it appears that responsive feeding is protective against the development of childhood obesity 40.
Although sources such as the WHO UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI) exist to provide guidance on improving caregivers’ knowledge about responsive feeding 41, 42, parents still report uncertainty about how ‘best’ to feed their infants 29. It is also suggested that healthcare professionals have not been equipped appropriately to assist caregivers in responsive feeding 43. In order to improve information and support for caregivers it is necessary to examine the barriers and enablers to responsive feeding. Understanding the underlying factors that influence responsive feeding will contribute to the development of a caregiver-focused support that aids responsive feeding. Systematic reviews have reported that healthcare professionals providing responsive feeding guidance to mothers on identifying and responding to children’s satiety and hunger cues can lead to healthy weight status/gain in early childhood 18, 44– 47.
Of central importance to improving and supporting appropriate responsive feeding behaviours is the fact that some determinants of this behaviour are modifiable, such as caregiver knowledge, and may be specifically targeted through interventions. Models of behaviour change are fundamental to informing such interventions and strategies to promote positive public health 48. The COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation and behaviour) model for example provides a framework for understanding behaviour change, and incorporates ‘capability’, ‘opportunity’, and ‘motivation’ are conceptualised as the three conditions necessary for behavioural change 48. Utilising the COM-B model to map barriers and enablers of responsive feeding behaviours provides a useful and tangible first step towards development of interventions and supports to assist primary caregivers to engage in responsive feeding behaviours that are associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity.
Research questions
What are the barriers and enablers associated to responsive and non-responsive feeding to prevent childhood overweight and obesity?
Method
Study registration
This study has been registered with the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 6 th August 2019 (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42019144570).
Study design
A step-by-step flow diagram will be used in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines, to demonstrate the study selection process, and rationale will be provided for excluded studies. The entirety of the review will follow the PRISMA-P checklist.
Ethics
Ethical approval is not required for this review as no experimental or observational research will be carried out, and no identifying personal information will be present or collected.
Types of studies
This review will examine both qualitative and quantitative primary studies that have examined factors associated with caregiver responsive and nonresponsive feeding of children up to 2 years old. All studies collecting primary data, or analysing primary data through secondary analyse will be included. Quantitative research such as, randomised control trials, case-control studies, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies will be included. In addition, qualitative studies, including research conducted as part of the process evaluation of an intervention trial, will be included. A broad remit of studies will be included in order to ensure factors that emerge in a variety of contexts and settings are identified. The studies must be published in English due to limitations in translation resources, and there will be no restriction on publication date.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Population
Primary caregivers (parents, guardians) of healthy children ≤ 2 years old. Studies of infants with medical conditions affecting feeding and growth, very preterm infants <32 weeks gestation, low birth weight (VLBW) <2500 g 49, and those who have been fed via a naso-gastric tube will be excluded from this review. We will also exclude studies including infants with major sensory and physical disabilities (e.g. blindness, deafness) because of the additional challenges that caregivers of these infants may find implementing responsive feeding in early life. To ensure the findings can contribute to the development of an intervention to reduce the risk of childhood overweight in a UK and Ireland-relevant population, studies conducted in countries where responsive feeding is used to improve weight gain in malnourished infants will be excluded. Studies will only be included if they are carried out in an economically developed country (as indicated by membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) 50.
Exposures
The exposures of interest are the barriers and enablers associated with primary caregiver feeding responsiveness and non-responsiveness. Examples of non-responsive feeding include, pressuring a child to eat, instrumental feeding, and controlling food intake which have all been associated with childhood overweight and obesity 19– 21.
Outcomes
To be included, studies need to report a factor that could be a barrier or enabler to responsive feeding, for example an intervention that includes anticipatory guidance. Responsive feeding during first 2 years of life as reported by the study authors. This will include outcomes measured using established scales, e.g. Child Feeding Questionnaire 51, and qualitative data in relation to caregiver feeding practices (such as, ensuring feeding context with few distractions) 52. Results from quantitative studies (for example, p-values, odds ratios, and confidence intervals) will be used to determine the existence and strength of associations between factors and feeding, whilst results from the qualitative studies (such as themes) will be synthesised to narratively explore barriers and enablers experienced by caregivers to responsive feeding.
Method for identifying studies for inclusion
The following databases will be searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care database. All databases will be searched from inception. All databases will be searched using the comprehensive search strategy outlined below.
Search strategy
The searches will be based on concepts associated with infant feeding behaviours to include proxy terms for responsive and non-responsive feeding and any barriers or enablers to primary caregiver engagement. We will use the following search strategy:
Feeding type concept: authoritarian OR authoritative OR bottle feeding OR breastfeeding OR breast feeding OR breast-feeding OR complementary feeding OR controlled feeding OR controlling feeding OR emotional feeding OR formula feeding OR non-responsive* OR pressured OR restricted feeding OR restricting feeding OR responsive* OR self-feeding OR unresponsive* OR weaning
Influencing factors concept: barrier* OR belief* OR challenge* OR determinant* OR enabler* OR experiences OR facilitator* OR facto* OR influenc* OR obstacle* OR parenting style* OR risk OR risk factors OR view*
Subject concept: babies OR baby OR child OR infant* OR maternal OR mother* OR neonat* OR newborn* OR parent* OR paediatric OR pediatric OR toddler*
Study design concept: cohort OR cross-sectional OR experiment* OR intervention OR interview OR observation* OR process evaluation OR qualitative.
Study selection
One researcher (VS) will independently screen titles and abstracts of all identified papers against eligibility criteria. Two other researchers (JR, SR) will each screen titles and abstracts of half of the identified papers. At least two members of the researcher team (VS, JR, KM, EO, SR) will then independently screen full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. Any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or recourse to a third reviewer from the team (VS, JR, KM, EO, SR). If necessary, the reviewers will attempt to contact authors of original articles to request missing information or for clarification. All references will be imported into EndNote and duplicates will be removed through EndNote and through manual screening.
Data extraction
Raw data from qualitative studies will be extracted onto an Excel spreadsheet and qualitative and quantitative data will be extracted using pre-determined standardised data extraction forms (see extended data 53, 54).
For the qualitative data extraction one researcher (SR) will extract the study participant, setting and design details of each paper and another researcher (JR) will download any qualitative data from each study to word files. Qualitative data will include the quotes, interpretative text and any other supplementary data. Two researchers (JR, SR) will each examine the qualitative data from three of the included papers and code the data relevant to barriers and enablers to responsive feeding to the COM-B framework. The researchers will meet to compare their interpretation of the data and coding, and any discrepancies will be discussed and resolved.
The quantitative data will be extracted independently by two reviewers (KM, EO), with one researcher (VS) extracting data from all quantitative studies, whilst two more researchers (KM, EO) will each extract data from half of the identified studies. The general study details (including author, title, date) will be extracted along with more specific details such as participant information, infant weight, and intervention details. Results of the study will be recorded (such as, confidence intervals, p-values, and standard deviations). Identified determinants and association factors identified in quantitative studies will be mapped onto the COM-B model, and will be synthesised with consideration given to the context of the strength of associations and effects. Researchers (VS, KM, EO) will meet to discuss findings of the data extraction and resolve any discrepancies.
Assessment of risk of bias
Two reviewers (VS, SR) will independently assess the methodological quality of these studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 55; any discrepancies will be resolved through consensus discussion or recourse to a third member of the research team (JR, KM, EO). MMAT provides two screening questionnaires, which are used in the appraisal stage of mixed methods systematic reviews. The MMAT is used to appraise five study types: randomised control trials, non-randomised studies, quantitative studies, qualitative research, and mixed methods design studies.
Strategy for data synthesis
We will use narrative text along with tables of the findings from the included studies, structured around: 1) the relation of barriers and enablers to responsive feeding and non-responsive feeding, and 2) the existence and strength of association between factors and responsive and/or non-responsive feeding outcomes. Depending on the heterogeneity of quantitative studies identified, a meta-analysis will be conducted.
To synthesise the extracted qualitative data, we will use a ‘best fit’ framework synthesis, as outlined by Booth and Carroll 56. Framework synthesis is a structured approach in which data are analysed using concepts or themes specified a priori 57, 58. The ‘best fit’ approach follows seven distinct steps, which includes incorporation of inductively emerging themes with pre-specified themes within the a priori framework. This allows for a flexible and rigorous approach to qualitative evidence synthesis 59. It provides a pragmatic approach to providing context-specific information and understanding of parents’ experiences of, and barriers and facilitators to responsive feeding. The framework to be used is the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) 48, and findings will be mapped onto this model.
Participant quotations and authors’ interpretations in the results sections of included papers will be coded using the a priori COM-B framework. An inductive thematic analysis of the data will also be conducted and additional themes, which are not accounted for by the COM-B model, will be added to the coding framework. Concepts from the COM-B framework and inductive thematic analysis will then be revisited and synthesised into a final set of themes.
Quantitative data will be extracted onto the COM-B model, with evidence of each barrier and enabler to responsive feeding. All stages of analysis will be conducted by one researcher (VS) and will be reviewed and discussed by all members of the study team to reach consensus on the final evidence synthesis.
Subgroup/subset analysis
Subgroup analysis will be determined and led by the data, but may include high/low income, mothers/fathers, primi/multiparous mothers.
Dissemination of findings
The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Study status
As of the 6 th January 2020, the selected databases have been searched, titles/abstracts have been screened, full texts have been screened against eligibility criteria, and data extraction has started.
Discussion
The aim of this systematic review is to analyse the scientific literature exploring and reporting on barriers and enablers to responsive feeding. The findings will inform researchers, health professionals and caregivers about the ways in which responsive feeding during infancy might be promoted, supported and improved. This could include identification of the groups of caregivers who find responsive feeding more challenging and a clear understanding of the behavioural components which may make this difficult. This should inform the co-production of specific education and support packages for both health professionals and caregivers.
Evidence around the barriers and enablers associated with responsive feeding will also enable researchers to inform health professional communities and to develop and/or adapt any existing interventions. This has the potential to contribute to reduce inappropriate feeding and could be particularly important in the prevention of childhood obesity. It is anticipated that the findings may also inform intervention development in ensuring that barriers to responsive feeding are tackled. In regards to intervention development and improvement, it is important that where it is not possible to modify a particular determinant (for example, maternal executive functioning, or infant temperament) the intervention may be adapted to suit the caregivers specific needs.
Potential limitations
This review will only include studies which are published in English, due to limitations in translation resources. This could mean excluding other relevant information based on language barriers. Secondly, unpublished literature will not be included, possibly leaning towards an increased risk of publication bias in the research that is included.
Amendments
If we need to make any amendments to this protocol, we will give the date of each amendment, describe the change and provide rationale in this section.
Data availability
Underlying data
No data is associated with this article.
Extended data
Figshare: CRiB Quantitative Data Extraction Form. https://doi.org/10.25411/aru.11498637.v1 60
This project contains the following extended data:
Quant Data Extraction.docx (Study data extraction form for quantitative data)
Figshare: CRiB Qualitative Data Extraction Form. https://doi.org/10.25411/aru.11498667.v1 53
This project contains the following extended data:
Qualitative Data Extraction Form Blank.xlsx (Study data extraction form for qualitative data)
Reporting Guidelines
Repository: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘Barriers and enablers to Caregivers Responsive feeding Behaviour (CRiB): A mixed method systematic review protocol’. https://doi.org/10.25411/aru.11378844.v2 54
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
Funding Statement
Health Research Board Ireland [ARPP-A 2018-011] This work was also supported by Anglia Ruskin University.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
References
- 1. World Health Organisation: Childhood overweight and obesity. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health,2019. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 2. Crouch P, O'Dea JA, Battisti R: Child feeding practices and perceptions of childhood overweight and childhood obesity risk among mothers of preschool children. Nutr Diet. 2007;64(3):151–158. 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00180.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. DiSantis KI, Hodges EA, Johnson SL, et al. : The role of responsive feeding in overweight during infancy and toddlerhood: a systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond). 2011;35(4):480–92. 10.1038/ijo.2011.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. World Health Organisation: Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity. Geneva: World Health Organisation.2016. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 5. Birch LL, Ventura AK: Preventing childhood obesity: what works? Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;33(Suppl 1):S74–S81. 10.1038/ijo.2009.22 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Woo Baidal JA, Locks LM, Cheng ER, et al. : Risk Factors for Childhood Obesity in the First 1,000 Days: A Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(6):761–779. 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Barrera CM, Perrine CG, Li R, et al. : Age at Introduction to Solid Foods and Child Obesity at 6 Years. Child Obes. 2016;12(3):188–192. 10.1089/chi.2016.0021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Ainsworth MS, Bowlby J: An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist. 1991;46(4):333–341. 10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.333 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Fox MK, Devaney B, Reidy K, et al. : Relationship between Portion Size and Energy Intake among Infants and Toddlers: Evidence of Self-Regulation. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(1 Suppl 1):S77–83. 10.1016/j.jada.2005.09.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Shaddy DJ, Colombo J: Developmental Changes in Infant Attention to Dynamic and Static Stimuli. Infancy. 2004;5(3):355–365. 10.1207/s15327078in0503_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Llewellyn CH, van Jaarsveld CHM, Johnson L, et al. : Nature and nurture in infant appetite: analysis of the Gemini twin birth cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(5):1172–9. 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Webber L, Cooke L, Hill C, et al. : Associations between Children's Appetitive Traits and Maternal Feeding Practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(11):1718–1722. 10.1016/j.jada.2010.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Daniels SR: The consequences of childhood overweight and obesity. Future Child. 2006;16(1):47–67. 10.1353/foc.2006.0004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Lloyd LJ, Langley-Evans SC, McMullen S: Childhood obesity and risk of the adult metabolic syndrome: a systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012;36(1):1–11. 10.1038/ijo.2011.186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Birch LL, Fisher JO: Development of eating behaviors among children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 1998;101(3 Pt 2):539–549. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Adams EL, Marini ME, Stokes J, et al. : INSIGHT responsive parenting intervention reduces infant's screen time and television exposure. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):24. 10.1186/s12966-018-0657-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Matvienko-Sikar K, Toomey E, Delaney L, et al. : Effects of healthcare professional delivered early feeding interventions on feeding practices and dietary intake: A systematic review. Appetite. 2018;123:56–71. 10.1016/j.appet.2017.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Drewett RF, Woolridge M: Milk taken by human babies from the first and second breast. Physiol Behav. 1981;26(2):327–9. 10.1016/0031-9384(81)90031-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Rodgers RF, Paxton SJ, Massey R, et al. : Maternal feeding practices predict weight gain and obesogenic eating behaviors in young children: a prospective study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:24. 10.1186/1479-5868-10-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Carnell S, Wardle J: Associations between multiple measures of parental feeding and children's adiposity in United Kingdom preschoolers. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(1):137–144. 10.1038/oby.2007.513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Farrow C, Blissett J: Does maternal control during feeding moderate early infant weight gain? Pediatrics. 2006;118(2):e293–8. 10.1542/peds.2005-2919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Thompson AL, Adair LS, Bentley ME: Pressuring and restrictive feeding styles influence infant feeding and size among a low-income African-American sample. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21(3): 562–571. 10.1002/oby.20091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Webber L, Cooke L, Hill C, et al. : Child adiposity and maternal feeding practices: a longitudinal analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92(6):1423–1428. 10.3945/ajcn.2010.30112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Jansen PW, Tharner A, van der Ende J, et al. : Feeding practices and child weight: is the association bidirectional in preschool children? Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100(5):1329–1336. 10.3945/ajcn.114.088922 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Harrison M, Brodribb W, Davies PSW, et al. : Impact of Maternal Infant Weight Perception on Infant Feeding and Dietary Intake. Matern Child Health J. 2018;22(8):1135–1145. 10.1007/s10995-018-2498-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Demir D, Bektas M: The effect of childrens' eating behaviors and parental feeding style on childhood obesity. Eat Behav. 2017;26:137–142. 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2017.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Farrow CV, Haycraft E, Blissett JM: Teaching our children when to eat: how parental feeding practices inform the development of emotional eating—a longitudinal experimental design. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(5):908–913. 10.3945/ajcn.114.103713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Clark HR, Goyder E, Bissell P, et al. : How do parents' child-feeding behaviours influence child weight? Implications for childhood obesity policy. J Public Health (Oxf). 2007;29(2):132–141. 10.1093/pubmed/fdm012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Matvienko-Sikar K, Kelly C, Sinnott C, et al. : Parental experiences and perceptions of infant complementary feeding: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Obes Rev. 2018;19(4):501–517. 10.1111/obr.12653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Monterrosa EC, Pelto GH, Frongillo EA, et al. : Constructing maternal knowledge frameworks. How mothers conceptualize complementary feeding. Appetite. 2012;59(2):377–384. 10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Brown A, Lee M: An exploration of experiences of mothers following a baby-led weaning style: developmental readiness for complementary foods. Matern Child Nutr. 2013;9(2):233–243. 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2011.00360.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Arden MA, Abbott RL: Experiences of baby-led weaning: trust, control and renegotiation. Matern Child Nutr. 2015;11(4):829–844. 10.1111/mcn.12106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Cameron SL, Heath ALM, Taylor RW: Healthcare professionals’ and mothers’ knowledge of attitudes to and experiences with, Baby-Led Weaning: a content analysis study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):e001542. 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Schwartz C, Madrelle J, Vereijken CMJL, et al. : Complementary feeding and “donner les bases du goût” (providing the foundation of taste). A qualitative approach to understand weaning practices, attitudes and experiences by French mothers. Appetite. 2013;71:321–331. 10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Kuswara K, Laws R, Kremer P, et al. : The infant feeding practices of Chinese immigrant mothers in Australia: A qualitative exploration. Appetite. 2016;105:375–384. 10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Elias CV, Power TG, Beck AE, et al. : Depressive Symptoms and Perceptions of Child Difficulty Are Associated with Less Responsive Feeding Behaviors in an Observational Study of Low-Income Mothers. Child Obes. 2016;12(6):418–425. 10.1089/chi.2016.0125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Fuglestad AJ, Demerath EW, Finsaas MC, et al. : Maternal executive function, infant feeding responsiveness and infant growth during the first 3 months. Pediatr Obes. 2017;12 Suppl 1:102–110. 10.1111/ijpo.12226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Agras WS, Kraemer HC, Berkowitz RI, et al. : Influence of early feeding style on adiposity at 6 years of age. J Pediatr. 1990;116(5):805–9. 10.1016/s0022-3476(05)82677-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Farrow CV, Galloway AT, Fraser K: Sibling eating behaviours and differential child feeding practices reported by parents. Appetite. 2009;52(2):307–312. 10.1016/j.appet.2008.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Daniels LA, Mallan KM, Nicholson JM, et al. : Outcomes of an Early Feeding Practices Intervention to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Pediatrics. 2013;132(1):e109–18. 10.1542/peds.2012-2882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. UNICEF: The evidence and rationale for the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative standard.2013. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 42. UNICEF: Reponsive feeding: Supporting close and loving relationships.2016. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 43. Redsell SA, Atkinson PJ, Nathan D, et al. : Preventing childhood obesity during infancy in UK primary care: a mixed-methods study of HCPs' knowledge, beliefs and practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12(1):54. 10.1186/1471-2296-12-54 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Paul IM, Savage JS, Anzman SL, et al. : Preventing obesity during infancy: a pilot study. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011;19(2):353–61. 10.1038/oby.2010.182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Redsell SA, Edmonds B, Swift JA, et al. : Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of interventions that aim to reduce the risk, either directly or indirectly, of overweight and obesity in infancy and early childhood. Matern Child Nutr. 2016;12(1):24–38. 10.1111/mcn.12184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Savage JS, Hohman EE, Marini ME, et al. : INSIGHT responsive parenting intervention and infant feeding practices: randomized clinical trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):64. 10.1186/s12966-018-0700-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Spill MK, Callahan EH, Shapiro MJ, et al. : Caregiver feeding practices and child weight outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;109(Suppl_7):990S–1002S. 10.1093/ajcn/nqy276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. World Health Organisation: ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11 MMS).2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 50. Development, O.f.t.E.C.-O.a.. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 51. Johnson SL, Birch LL: Parents' and children's adiposity and eating style. Pediatrics. 1994;94(5):653–661. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Black MM, Aboud FE: Responsive feeding is embedded in a theoretical framework of responsive parenting. J Nutr. 2011;141(3):490–4. 10.3945/jn.110.129973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Slater V, Rose J, Matvienko-Sikar K, et al. : CRiB Qualitative Data Extraction Form. figshare.Figure.2020. 10.25411/aru.11498667.v1 [DOI]
- 54. Slater V, Rose J, Matvienko-Sikar K, et al. : Barriers and enablers to Caregivers Responsive feeding Behaviour (CRiB): A mixed method systematic review protocol PRISMA-P checklist. figshare.Figure.2019. 10.25411/aru.11378844.v2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 55. Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, et al. : Proposal: a mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic reviews. 2018 I.C. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Editor.2011. Reference source [Google Scholar]
- 56. Booth A, Carroll C: How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of 'best fit' framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(11):700–8. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K: A worked example of "best fit" framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:29. 10.1186/1471-2288-11-29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Dixon-Woods M: Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med. 2011;9:39. 10.1186/1741-7015-9-39 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, et al. : "Best fit" framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:37. 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Slater V, Rose J, Matvienko-Sikar K, et al. : CRiB Quantitative Data Extraction Form. figshare.Figure.2020. 10.25411/aru.11498637.v1 [DOI]