4.1 Article

Creating Potential for Common Ground and Communication Between Early Childhood Program Staff and Parents About Young Children's Eating

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
卷 45, 期 6, 页码 558-570

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.02.009

关键词

child nutrition; child care; parents; feeding behavior; nutrition education

资金

  1. National Research Initiative of the United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service [2006-55215-16726]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To explore child care staff and parent perspectives and communications about children's eating in child care. Design: Focus groups (FGs) conducted with child care staff and parents. Setting: Four Western states in the United States. Participants: Thirty-nine child care staff in 7 FGs and 25 parents in 6 FGs. Phenomenon of Interest: Thoughts and concerns about children's eating and opportunities to improve communication between staff and parents. Analysis: Content analysis (FG coding inter-rater reliability: staff = 0.74; parents = 0.81) and identification of meta-themes. Results: Three meta-themes were identified: (1) recognition of positive influences of the child care setting in children's development of healthy eating; (2) concerns about children's eating in child care and at home; and (3) strategies to improve communications and transactions related to children's eating. Conclusions and Implications: Staff reported that their roles included informing parents about food at mealtimes in child care (eg, menus, recipes) but also educating parents about child nutrition and feeding. Parents valued daily information about their child's eating to adjust home mealtimes and to feel connected to their child. Barriers to effective communication included limited time and concerns regarding parent reactions and defensiveness. Staff requested training about child nutrition and feeding and about sensitive communications with parents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据