Patterns of food parenting practices regarding junk food and sugary drinks among parent-child dyads

Authors: Thomson, Jessica; HENNESSY, ERIN - Tufts University; LANDRY, ALICIA - University Of Central Arkansas; Goodman, Melissa

Submitted to: Nutrition Journal
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 8/20/2020
Publication Date: 8/26/2020
Citation: Thomson, J.L., Hennessy, E., Landry, A.S., Goodman, M.H. 2020. Patterns of food parenting practices regarding junk food and sugary drinks among parent-child dyads. Nutrition Journal. 19:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-020-00610-3.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-020-00610-3

Interpretive Summary: Parental child feeding practices, such as pressure to eat and monitoring, can affect children’s dietary intake and food preferences. Studying patterns of food parenting practice use is necessary to determine which practices are used in combination, which patterns are associated with more healthful dietary intake, and explore parent and child characteristics associated with specific patterns. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine patterns of food parenting practices regarding junk food and sugary drinks (JS) and explore their relationships with demographic characteristics and sugar consumption in a large cohort of parents and their children (12-17 years of age). Paired parent-child survey data from the Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating Study, a cross-sectional, Internet-based study, conducted in 2014 were analyzed to identify patterns of parent- and child-reported JS parenting practices (n=6). Additionally, associations between the identified patterns and parent and child sex, body mass index, JS intake, and beliefs about whether it is okay for a parent to make rules about a child’s behavior like JS consumption (JS legitimacy of parental authority [LPA]) were explored. Based on 1,657 parent-child pairs, five patterns were identified representing almost complete use of the six JS parenting practices to almost no use of the practices. Parent and child responses were generally in agreement for four of the five patterns. Younger children were more likely to belong to the high use and coercive control patterns. Male children were least likely to belong to the low use pattern. The high use pattern had the most agreement with LPA for both parents and children. The low use pattern had the lowest sugar consumption while the coercive control pattern had the highest sugar consumption for both parents and children. This study’s findings suggest that distinct patterns of JS parenting practices exist and are associated with parent and child demographic characteristics, sugar consumption, and JS LPA. Counseling or intervening with parents to use a mix of structure practices to positively influence their child’s and possibly their own intake of sugary snacks and drinks may prove more efficacious than use of coercive control practices.

Technical Abstract: Children’s food preference and intake patterns are affected by parental child feeding practices. The objective was to determine patterns of food parenting practices regarding junk food and sugary drinks (JS) and investigate their associations with demographic characteristics and dietary intake in a large cohort of parents and their children (12-17 years). Methods: Dyadic survey data from the cross-sectional, internet-based Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating Study, conducted in 2014, were analyzed using latent class analysis to identify patterns of use for six JS parenting practices – negative emotions, restriction, monitoring, availability, modeling, and child involvement – based on parent and child report. Model covariates included self-reported parent and child sex, age (child only), body mass index category (based on height and weight), added sugars intake, and legitimacy of parental authority. Results: Based on 1,657 parent-child dyads, five parenting practice patterns were identified representing different levels of practice use – Complete Influencers (28%; reference class), Indifferent Influencers (21%), Negative Influencers (20%), Minimal Influencers (18%), and Disagreeing Influencers (13%). Compared to older child dyads, younger child dyads were less likely to belong to Indifferent and Minimal Influencers (79% and 63% lower odds, respectively). Greater parent added sugars intake increased the odds of belonging to Indifferent and Negative Influencers (4% and 5% higher for every teaspoon increase, respectively) while greater child added sugars intake decreased the odds of belonging to Minimal Influencers (6% lower for every teaspoon increase). Compared to dyads with high scores, dyads with low child scores for legitimacy of parental authority regarding JS were 18 times as likely to belong to Disagreeing Influencers. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that parents utilize distinct patterns of feeding practices regarding JS ranging from use of many practices, use of some practices, to low use of any practice, with differential associations with parent and child intakes of added sugars. Counseling or intervening with parents to use a mix of structure practices, such as availability and modeling, to positively influence their child’s and possibly their own intake of sugary snacks and drinks may prove more efficacious than use of coercive control practices, such as negative emotions.